16.2mm gauge - who uses this and why?

[hayfield]

Dan

 

By building your own turnouts providing you have good plans (templates) this will improve the look, I build turnouts in 00, 00-SF and EM. I find the latter 2 easier to build and the running qualities are much better. If all your stock has the newer type or finescales wheels and you do not want to re-gauge them then built to 00-SF gauge.

 

However if you have some older wheels on some of your stock then your option is to build to 00 gauge (unless you re-wheel them).

 

The other part to good looking trackwork is the presentation, ballasting and painting. This whilst will not having any effect on the running qualities, when done well enhances the visual effect no end.

[highpeak]

The final point, I talked to an engineering designer from one major maker, mentioned wheels, and he did not know that wheels are coned or that the root radius was important.........it shook me very deeply that he was designing the models and knew nothing at all about wheel design. I asked him what guided the wheels through pointwork, and he replied the flange, and he really meant that........I give up ......

 

Stephen.

That is a bit unsettling.

 

A number of years ago I used to serve as a docent at a streetcar museum. We had a wheel lathe in the workshop with an old wheelset mounted, one wheel was worn, one had been re-profiled. Using the example of the wheelset, a traffic cone to exaggerate the idea of coning, and the image of two people running round a running track, I could get 10 year old school kids to understand the concept, so it beggars belief that your chap couldn't figure it out!

[Dan6470]

Dan

 

I build turnouts in 00, 00-SF and EM. I find the latter 2 easier to build

 

Hi John,

 

Thanks for your comments. Can you please expand on your comment about 00-SF being easier to build than 00. Also if joining 00-SF to 00 where does the easement from 16.2mm to 16.5 occur, is it built into the ends of the point or do you narrow the gauge of normal trackwork near to the point joint?

 

Dan

[hayfield]

Dan

 

I build turnouts for others as well as myself. In both EM and 00-SF (00-SF is sometimes called EM-2(mm))The standards are much finer (this also goes for S4 & P4 etc). With 00 universal the standards are much coarser. The problem being that if you run a collection of locos from various makers, with some being a bit older, a little tweaking is needed to allow older Hornby etc locos to run as well as the newer ones available today with finer wheels. Not much harder but a little fine tuning is required. If you use finescale wheels the tweaking is not required.

 

With EM and 00-SF you will use the folling gauges, roller, 3 point, check rail and flange. you can build an 00 turnout with a set of roller gauges.

 

Roller gauges are fine for straight track and larger radii, 3 point gauges increase the gauge on curved track, check rails are set fron the V (the 3 point gauges may have widened the gauge) and the flange way gauge keeps a consistant gap through the frog part of the turnout. The gap in the frog is kept much smaller so wheel drop is reduced. You have to use wheels that fit within the standards but most new RTR stock now is compatable. I find its just easier to build trackwork using these gauges.

 

Plain track can be built to a gauge of 16.5 as the wheel treads will cope with the 0.3mm difference. The main benefit of the 16.2mm gauge is through the turnouts (better running and visual effect), you can build the plain track to 16.2mm gauge you just have to use a 3 point gauge on the curved parts.

[martin_wynne]

I have just been looking at the NMRA web site and in the NMRA STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDED PRACTICES S-1.2 General Standards it mentions a 4mm gauge that I have not come across before, a 16.2mm gauge.

Hi Dan,

 

Ed McCamey added the note about 16.2mm track gauge to the recently-updated NMRA docs after correspondence with me and discussion on the 00-SF group.

 

I wrote about the origins of 00-SF (formerly called "EM minus 2") a couple of years ago on the Templot Club forum:

 

http://85a.co.uk/for...=124&forum_id=5

 

Here it is again, and below it some notes of mine about the various 00 gauge standards:

___________________

 

I myself have manufactured hundreds of 00-SF turnouts and sold them to very satisfied customers. They weren't actually called "00-SF" at the time, I just called them "00 extra fine". Some were on plain copper-clad timbering. Some were on my milled copper-laminate timbers with raised chairing effect. They all worked just fine as advertised.

 

What follows is my best recollection of events more than 30 years ago. After all this time I confess my memory is much less than perfect, so if anyone reading this knows different, please do say. I could probably find out more by rummaging through old notebooks and papers, but it would take me hours to find the right ones first!

 

From 1974 to 1984 trading as 85A Models I was manufacturing turnout kits and components, and pointwork to order. About 1972 Roy Miller of the EMGS had told me about the idea of "EM minus 2", i.e. reducing the 18.2mm gauge of EM to 16.2mm gauge with the same 1.0mm flangeways. He thought it would be a good way to show 00 modellers how much better their running would be if they changed to EM, using 1.0mm flangeways, by demonstrating such running with their existing 00 stock. I'm fairly sure "EM minus 2" was Roy's own idea. Or it may have come from elsewhere in the EMGS. I am very sure it was Roy who told me about it.

 

When I started manufacturing pointwork Roy asked me to make up a crossover in "EM minus 2" which he could have on the EM stand at shows. I made one up and I was immediately impressed with its performance. So much so that I altered my standard 00 product to 16.2mm gauge with 1.0mm flangeways. I didn't shout about the 16.2 aspect of it, knowing it would be contentious, just that it was an extra fine 00 standard which worked very well. Mention of the 16.2mm gauge was hidden in the small print. But customers liked it and always came back for more. The narrower flangeways made it look much finer than any other 00 pointwork.

 

At that time they were using only "scale 00" wheels -- mostly white-metal kits with Romford wheels and axles. The running of such wheels on "EM minus 2" pointwork proved to be a big improvement on the alternative BRMSB standard -- not surprising when you do the arithmetic on wheel-width. There was no thought at that time of using "EM minus 2" for RTR stock. RTR was much too coarse at the time, nearly all serious 00 modellers would re-wheel it with Romford if they used any RTR at all.

 

When I was developing Templot I remembered "EM minus 2", so I included it in the gauge list, and gave it the name 00-SF ("00 special fine"). A few years ago Dave Smith at the Carshalton club discovered it there and asked me about it. He was having trouble getting good running on his club's new layout. Or perhaps I remembered it and steered him towards it -- the actual details should be in the Yahoo message archive. Anyway the upshot was that Dave tried it and discovered that all his modern RTR stock ran on it very well -- rather to his surprise, my surprise and indeed everyone's surprise. It seems that in the intervening 25 years RTR wheels had improved somewhat.

 

As a result of that, and the growing interest which developed, the present 00-SF group was spun off from the Templot group and they are steaming ahead getting gauges made. Some gauges have already been delivered from the US.

 

I'm sorry I don't have any pictures of all those 16.2mm turnouts and pointwork. It's a long time ago now. But I dare say some of it is still in use on some layouts somewhere. It does actually work very well. If you know of an old 00 layout with 85A pointwork made to order it might be worth measuring the track gauge!

 

It was all good fun and interesting memories. Customers were satisfied. No-one got hurt. Why 00-SF has to be the subject of such acrimony on RMweb and uk.rec.models.rail is a mystery.

 

 

Can someone explain what these other 00 standards are (and where I can find details of them), which ones are well supported with track gauges etc., and crucially, why 00-SF is still better?

You do realise what you are asking here?

 

Strong men have been reduced to tears entering this minefield. There is almost nothing one man can say on the subject of 00 gauge which won't be vehemently denied by another.

 

So with that in mind please take these comments as mine alone, others will almost certainly disagree:

 

Broadly you have four standards to choose from (with approximate equivalents):

 

a. 00/H0 = DOGA Coarse/Commercial = Peco

 

b. 00-BF = BRMSB = DOGA Intermediate = NMRA H0

 

c. DOGA Fine

 

d. 00-SF

 

---------------------------------------

 

a. 00/H0 = DOGA Coarse/Commercial = Peco

 

16.5mm gauge. Flangeways 1.5mm/1.4mm

 

Peco flangeways used to be 1.5mm and 00/H0 is so defined in Templot. I believe Peco made an unannounced change to 1.4mm flangeways at some time in recent years.

 

With 1.4mm flangeways most modern RTR wheels will run ok, although some may be just borderline on bumping in the crossings. Finer wheels such as Romford/Markits or Alan Gibson will definitely fall in the crossings with a bump, and may even derail.

 

This is not far removed from toy track. I don't think anyone building their own track would ever consider it, unless for some reason you want to run very old RTR such as Tri-ang or Trix Twin on handbuilt track.

 

You may hear it suggested that wheels don't bump because they run on the flanges through Peco crossings. If this happens it is extremely bad news -- it means the wheel has been lifted off the rail and will lose electrical pick-up.

------------------------------------------

 

b. 00-BF = BRMSB = DOGA Intermediate = NMRA H0

 

16.5mm gauge. 1.25mm flangeways

 

This is traditional "scale 00" as defined by the BRMSB circa 1950, and also matching most H0 tracks. This corresponds to the left-hand side of the diagram on the 00-SF group's front page. A large number of fine 00 layouts have been built using this standard over the years, including some of the well-known ones on the exhibition circuit today.

 

In the early days RTR was too coarse for this. But virtually all modern RTR should run on 00-BF just fine as-is. Romford/Markits wheels are just borderline, Alan Gibson wheels are likely to be bumpy, but may be improved by tweaking the back-to-back.

 

No gauge-widening is ever needed, there is plenty of slack in the dimensions for sharp curves.

--------------------------------------------

 

c. DOGA Fine

 

16.5mm gauge 1.0mm flangeways

 

This is DOGA's answer to the problem of improved running for wheels such as Alan Gibson. The huge disadvantage of this standard is that it requires the wheels to have a wider than normal back-to-back dimension. All wheels using DOGA Fine track have to be adjusted to the DOGA Fine back-to-back gauge.

 

And having been so modified, such wheels are unlikely to run well, or won't run at all, on any of the other 00 standards.

 

This is not a standard to use if you want to run RTR straight out of the box, or interchange your rolling stock with friends' layouts not using this standard.

 

Nor can you mix this standard with any other on the same layout. So no using Peco turnouts in the fiddle yard. All the track on your layout must be to this standard before you can run the first train.

 

It does mean however that the 16.5mm gauge matches all available flexi-track. Although this may not be suitable on very sharp curves where some gauge widening up to say 16.8mm may be needed for long-wheelbase locomotives.

------------------------------------------

 

d. 00-SF

 

16.2mm gauge. 1.0mm flangeways

 

This corresponds to the right-hand side of the diagram on the 00-SF group's front page.

 

This alternative to DOGA Fine uses a reduced track gauge to avoid the need for wheels to be modified. Romford/Markits wheels and Alan Gibson will run extremely well exactly as supplied.

 

Reports suggest that virtually all modern RTR also runs well on 00-SF exactly as supplied. This will certainly be the case if the wheels comply with the NMRA H0 standard. Most RTR manufacturers' published dimensions correspond to this. However you are relying on their quality-control and you may find an odd wheelset which needs adjustment, or to be returned for replacement.

 

For 00-SF, wheels need a back-to-back dimension of at least 14.3mm to be sure of running well. And a BEF dimension not greater than 15.2mm. With an effective flange thickness of 0.7mm that means a maximum back-to-back of 14.5mm. The NMRA standard is 14.4mm.

 

The NMRA RP25/110 flange thickness is 0.8mm max which easily clears a 1.0mm flangeway, as for DOGA Fine. Romford/Markits and Alan Gibson wheels have thinner flanges, corresponding to RP25/100 and RP25/90.

 

The reduced 16.2mm track gauge may or may not be an issue. For very sharp curves you may need gauge-widening up to 16.5mm, so flexi-track can be used normally. For gentler curves and straight plain track you can either use flexi-track, with an adjustment where it joins pointwork (hardly noticeable except by those who are determined to notice it!).

 

Or you can handbuild 16.2mm plain track. This is the best option for a small fine-scale layout because you can correctly model the 60ft (or other) rail lengths and closed-up timbering at the rail joints. It's a lot of work on a very large layout of course.

 

However, because you are not changing the wheels, the layout remains fully interchangeable with 00-BF and Peco, and you can mix the different standards on the same layout. Handbuilt 00-SF at the front, 16.5mm flexi round the ends, Peco turnouts or existing 00-BF turnouts in the fiddle yard at the back.

 

And if you already have a layout in 00-BF or Peco, you can convert it to 00-SF one turnout at a time.

 

Apart from improved running, a big advantage of both DOGA Fine and 00-SF is the much improved appearance of the track with narrower 1.0mm flangeways. As can be seen in the diagram on the 00-SF group's front page, and in the diagrams at http://00-sf.org.uk .

------------------------------------

 

As for a personal recommendation, I think your choice is between 00-BF (DOGA Intermediate) and 00-SF.

 

Use 00-BF if you don't even want to think about wheels and don't mind the appearance of the wider flangeways or the possibility of a slight bump with Alan Gibson wheels. Gauges for 00-BF are available from DOGA or NMRA.

 

Use 00-SF if you want the best appearance and smoothest running, but are prepared to check wheels and possibly replace any rogue wheelsets if you are unlucky. Gauges for 00-SF are available via the 00-SF group thanks to the valuable efforts of members. (The check gauge tool for 00-SF is interchangeable with the check gauge for 00-BF.)

 

If I was starting a 00 layout I would certainly choose 00-SF. I've made lots of it in the past. It worked fine then and it would do so again.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[John M]

Adjusting the gauge to overcome problems with ride quality is not exactly unknown on the prototype.

 

I understand that on certain lines in the UK gauge was reduced in a similar manner to minimise bogie hunting on plain track by IC125 and other high speed stock.

 

Allowing for gauge tollerances standard gauge may vary between 4'8"-4'9 _^1/2" in the US for lines rated for 60mph running.

 

I know of one preserved narrow gauge line in the UK where the gauge was widened through turnouts to accomodate differnet tyre profiles and variations in B to B between stock built to the same nominal gauge.

 

 

John

 

 

[nswgr1855]

Stephen,

 

It is true some UK wheels have terrible flanges, as do some US plastic wheels supplied on RTR. The root radius is only critical on the NMRA RP 25 style flange profile. The old NOROP NEM coarse style flange works perfectly well without a root radius. It's the flange rail contact angle that determines how good the flange does its job and in limiting cases it is hard up against the rail. That's right, the flange does giude the wheel, otherwise why is it there? See my web page for a comparision between H0 model railway flanges and prototype flanges. The 00-SF standard actually allows RTR manufacturers to supply finescale wheels that are backward compatable with track built to the older coarse industry standards used by PECO. If you want trackwork that complies with DOGA, NMRA, NOROP NEM or AMRA (Australian model railway association) then you need to build your own track. The 00-SF standard adds up theoretically, and is proven to give superior performance compared to the older standards, and is well proven. My web site has a spread sheet you can play with to check out the numbers. I model in H0 and call my track standard H0 finescale = 00-SF. AMRA has now introduced a fine tolerance track standard. 00-SF is within the limits of the standard and manufacturers who want to improve their models now have a finescale standard that is compatable with the existing coarse scale track. AMRA intends to publish their new standards on the web in the near future. I for one do not wish to see steam roller width NMRA RP25-110 wheels on RTR 00 or H0 models.

 

Terry Flynn

 

 

http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html

 

HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates

 

DC control circuit diagrams

 

HO scale track and wheel standards

 

Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet

 

 

It is a fine system, it works, it is a cure to an ill, but you are not addressing is why you buy stock that is badly made, badly engineered, and out of an acceptable standard, would you buy a four wheeled car with three wheels, and all lean out of the window to make it drivable?

 

Just because the wheels were narrowed to make them match modern standards means the track is wrong, so you pays your money and correct the track, or you insist the whole thing is brought to book and standardised to prevent this happening, as it never has in the States.

 

The drop that happens on Peco code 100 is down to the horrid legacy of poor standard that Peco have had to live with and have striven to provide decent points for for 50 years, to call them course is wrong, they cater for a problem, and do offer other points.

 

Narrower tyres do not stop US modellers, and such wheels run over code 100 Peco points quite adequately, slight drop, but if your using code 100 universal points you cannot expect absolutely prefect running. Smaller codes from Peco have no drop as long as the wheels are RP-25 profile.

 

Yes, the 16.2mm makes the tyre run without drop, but this advantage is a god send to the makers who have the pressure to improve wheels and points relaxed a bit.

 

To test this a bit I got out several RP-25 old type wheels, (the usual, not the newer narrow type), and ran 50 year old assorted HO Locos over a small stock of Peco code 100 points, none glitch, none dropped the wheels, all sailed through without any trouble.

 

So where's the problem? It s plainly not a narrow tyre problem, this simplifies it too much, and I do know the answer, it is the lack of the root radius on most UK produced wheels until recently.

This is the heart of the trouble, the UK non standard wheels rub the face of the flange against the rail side.

 

A wheel with the root radius does not allow the flange to touch the rail, the flange does not guide the loco. The US wheels have a root radius that does the work of guiding the wheel.

 

So when the gauge is tightened the wheels with no root radius are now still guided by the flange , but the edge of the tyre runs across the frog gap supported by the edge of the two rails.

 

This occurs naturally with RP-25 on 16.5 properly implemented without any adjustment of gauge.

 

I an not new to this problem, I worked on model wheel design, and making, both in the UK and the US, met and discussed this at length with Mr Pritchard of Peco, and with NMRA Officials, and with Linn Westcott of Model Railroader, during a visit to the UK.

 

I can assure you I also fully support anybody's right to do as they like on their layout, but the information each way must be fully put to the modeller, and some explanations, (not on here), of 16.2 display a lack of understanding of model railway engineering.

 

At best the 16.2mm track offers a sound solution to using assorted wheels, all types, with or without root tyres, but there is a penalty that ordinary users get from this, the makers stand back and still will not improve products.

 

The final point, I talked to an engineering designer from one major maker, mentioned wheels, and he did not know that wheels are coned or that the root radius was important.........it shook me very deeply that he was designing the models and knew nothing at all about wheel design. I asked him what guided the wheels through pointwork, and he replied the flange, and he really meant that........I give up ......

 

Stephen.

[tebee]

The final point, I talked to an engineering designer from one major maker, mentioned wheels, and he did not know that wheels are coned or that the root radius was important.........it shook me very deeply that he was designing the models and knew nothing at all about wheel design. I asked him what guided the wheels through pointwork, and he replied the flange, and he really meant that........I give up ......

 

Stephen.

 

I've had the same conversation with someone building 15 inch gauge rolling stock.

[Ravenser]

So...(deep breath)...if I'm going to build my own (C&L) track and turnouts and use current RTR Bachmann, Heljan and Hornby locos with rolling stock on Alan Gibson (or equivalent) wheelsets: what gauge do I go for to avoid the crossing wheel drop?

 

I did say take a deep breath...

 

You are then working to what DOGA labels OO Finescale . I am assuming that you are rewheeling the locos with Ultrascale wheeels.

 

If not , then you have a mix of wheeltypes - RP25/110 - or manufacturers' approximation thereof - on the locos, and no track standard will perfectly match two significantly different wheel standards.

 

As :

 

1. C+L gauges use 1.0mm flangeway

2. Heljan set their back to back as tight as 14.2mm - which I don't defend, and wish they didn't

 

you are going to have to do some adjusting or rewheeling.

 

I suggest that drop in Ultrascale packs for the locos are probably the fastest and easiest way forward here especially if they are diesels, and then build to 16.5mm gauge OO Finescale using a completely consistant wheel profile across all stock (The 1979 EM profile, if you're interested)

 

This will certainly avoid wheel drop

 

OOSF would involve easing out at least the Heljan and probably some of the other loco whewels to 14.5mm ~(manufacturers factory tolerances are not always spot on) and closing up all the Gibson wheels on the stock to 14.5mm from 14.7mm or 14.8mm

 

For OO Intermediate you would be looking to fit the stock with either Bachmann/Hornby wheels or Romfords, gauged to 14.4mm, and leave the loco wheels as is , but use the broader 1.25mm flangeway. Again you should have no drop in.

 

Those are your options , but as you are already intending to use C+L track and and Gibson wheels on the rolling stock, I'd suggest OO Finescale would be the most convenient for you.

 

OO Finescale track standard

 

OO Finescale wheel standard

 

I have some reservations about pushing the broad RP25/110 wheel through the narrower flangeways designed for the 1979EM profile wheel. Eroding the working tolerances in that way must have some effect on things like minimum workable radii

[Ravenser]

Two detailed points:

 

Martin Wynne

 

a. 00/H0 = DOGA Coarse/Commercial = Peco

 

For the record there is no "DOGA Coarse" standard, though anything coarser than Intermediate would obviously be regarded as Coarse...

 

The OO Intermediate standards have in the past been referred to as "OO Commercial". However while the wheel standard (which is RP25/110 restated) has been nominally adopted by commercial RTR manufacturers , the track standard has not at this point, although I know DOGA have pressed Peco to tighten up their flangeways to suit modern wheels

 

(I am aware that RTR manufacturers' interpretation of RP25/110 is rather freer than is desireable, but what we now have is 4 stabs at the same thing, rather than the completely different approaches you used to see comparing Lima, old Hornby, Bachman and Romford wheels)

 

nswgr1855

The old NOROP NEM coarse style flange works perfectly well without a root radius. It's the flange rail contact angle that determines how good the flange does its job and in limiting cases it is hard up against the rail. That's right, the flange does giude the wheel, otherwise why is it there?

 

The concept behind the old MOROP NEM standards - which date from the 1950s - is that at a point frog the flange will ground, and the wheel will run through the point supported on the base of the flange! There is therefore no drop-in, because the wheel is not supposed to run on the tread across the frog......

 

Hence the monstrous "pizza-cutter" flanges.....

 

And if you think this is just too outrageous to be true, please note that Fleischmann sell or used to sell , little plastic inserts for point frogs so that if you were using RP25/110 wheels you could pack the bottom of the frog and make RP25/110 wheels ground too!!!!

 

Words fail me at this point....

[martin_wynne]

Those are your options , but as you are already intending to use C+L track and and Gibson wheels on the rolling stock, I'd suggest OO Finescale would be the most convenient for you.

The big disadvantage with DOGA Fine is that you have to set all wheels to 14.8mm B-B (not easy for some RTR locos) and build all pointwork to DOGA Fine standard.

 

And after you have done that:

 

1. Your stock won't run reliably on 00 layouts not built to DOGA Fine (i.e. the vast majority of 00 layouts, club layouts, test tracks, friends' layouts etc.)

 

2. You friends' stock won't run reliably on your layout unless they also use DOGA Fine.

 

The advantages of 00-SF (16.2mm track gauge) are that most stock will run unmodified out of the box, so both your layout and stock remain compatible with the majority of 00 models. A few non-compliant wheels may need attention, but that's a lot less work than changing everything. And you can mix pointwork built to 00-SF with 00-BF (DOGA Intermediate) and Peco on the same layout. So it's not all or nothing -- you can try the improved running and appearance of 1mm flangeways without a major commitment.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[John M]

You are then working to what DOGA labels OO Finescale . I am assuming that you are rewheeling the locos with Ultrascale wheeels.

 

If not , then you have a mix of wheeltypes - RP25/110 - or manufacturers' approximation thereof - on the locos, and no track standard will perfectly match two significantly different wheel standards.

 

As :

 

1. C+L gauges use 1.0mm flangeway

2. Heljan set their back to back as tight as 14.2mm - which I don't defend, and wish they didn't

 

you are going to have to do some adjusting or rewheeling.

 

I suggest that drop in Ultrascale packs for the locos are probably the fastest and easiest way forward here especially if they are diesels, and then build to 16.5mm gauge OO Finescale using a completely consistant wheel profile across all stock (The 1979 EM profile, if you're interested)

 

This will certainly avoid wheel drop

 

OOSF would involve easing out at least the Heljan and probably some of the other loco whewels to 14.5mm ~(manufacturers factory tolerances are not always spot on) and closing up all the Gibson wheels on the stock to 14.5mm from 14.7mm or 14.8mm

 

For OO Intermediate you would be looking to fit the stock with either Bachmann/Hornby wheels or Romfords, gauged to 14.4mm, and leave the loco wheels as is , but use the broader 1.25mm flangeway. Again you should have no drop in.

 

Those are your options , but as you are already intending to use C+L track and and Gibson wheels on the rolling stock, I'd suggest OO Finescale would be the most convenient for you.

 

OO Finescale track standard

 

OO Finescale wheel standard

 

I have some reservations about pushing the broad RP25/110 wheel through the narrower flangeways designed for the 1979EM profile wheel. Eroding the working tolerances in that way must have some effect on things like minimum workable radii

 

 

Interestingly it seems to be much the same idea advocated by Iain Rice in a series of artcles in Model railways in the 1980s.

 

By treating the distance between the back of the wheel on one side and the face of the opposing flange as a constant rather than the back to back, the check gauge could be tightened up while still accomodating different wheel and flange profiles.

 

It seems to work as I have tried it to a limited extent in EM to accomodate older Jackson & PC wheel sets alongside more recent Sharman and Gibson wheel sets.

 

 

The basic idea was that by allowing the Back to Back to vary between different manufacturers wheel profiles a wheelset could be set up with minimal running clearance thus avoiding the drop down effect at the crossing nose and reduce the width of the flangeway

 

 

 

John

[martin_wynne]

Interestingly it seems to be much the same idea advocated by Iain Rice in a series of artcles in Model railways in the 1980s.

 

By treating the distance between the back of the wheel on one side and the face of the opposing flange as a constant rather than the back to back, the check gauge could be tightened up while still accomodating different wheel and flange profiles.

Hi John,

 

It's not exactly Iain Rice's idea.

 

That dimension is called BEF (Back-to-Effective Flange) and it's the bog-standard way of dimensioning wheelsets to track standards. Modellers use the "back-to-back" dimension as a convenient approximation, because it's much easier to measure than BEF.

 

Back-to-back should be adjusted according to the flange thickness to maintain a constant BEF, although many modellers wrongly regard the back-to-back dimension as fixed and sacrosanct.

 

The essential requirement for proper running through crossings is that BEF does not exceed the check gauge (CG).

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

The big disadvantage with DOGA Fine is that you have to set all wheels to 14.8mm B-B (not easy for some RTR locos) and build all pointwork to DOGA Fine standard.

 

And after you have done that:

 

1. Your stock won't run reliably on 00 layouts not built to DOGA Fine (i.e. the vast majority of 00 layouts, club layouts, test tracks, friends' layouts etc.)

 

2. You friends' stock won't run reliably on your layout unless they also use DOGA Fine.

 

The advantages of 00-SF (16.2mm track gauge) are that most stock will run unmodified out of the box, so both your layout and stock remain compatible with the majority of 00 models. A few non-compliant wheels may need attention, but that's a lot less work than changing everything. And you can mix pointwork built to 00-SF with 00-BF (DOGA Intermediate) and Peco on the same layout. So it's not all or nothing -- you can try the improved running and appearance of 1mm flangeways without a major commitment.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Martin:

 

the original poster had already declared his intention to build all the points using C+L components , and as OO Finescale is what you get if you use C+L gauges , this would not be an issue for him

 

He's also declared his intent to use Gibson wheels on all rolling stock. Presumably he's intending to rewheel any RTR rolling stock. Since Gibsons come set up for OO Finescale /16.5mm gauge (as John M remarks, OO Finescale is essentially a formal codification of the concept advocated by Iain Rice in the 80s/90s - EM minus 1.7mm , using C+L track components and Gibson wheels) these wheels will all need their back to back reducing for OO-SF

 

Personally , I'd have left the rolling stock with RTR wheels and fitted Romford (or Hornby+ Bachmann) wheels to the kits, and gone the route of Intermediate. But as the Original Poster has effectively declared his intention to rewheel all the stock , that is presumably acceptable to him.

 

Clearly there are diesels involved on the loco front (Heljan don't make kettles), and Ultrascale wheels are quick and easy to fit , so the only question mark to my mind would be whether any steam engines are involved where rewheeling would be more difficult

 

Yr 1 is not a major issue (enough people use Gibson wheels on stock that runs over Peco track - in fact Peco currently supply the things in Ratio wagon kits - a prize piece of disconnected thinking). Reliability is sub optimum of course , and there will be substantial drop in , but it will normally work , and we are talking about ad hoc running anyway.

 

Yr 2 is a bit more serious - nothing will run through pointwork to OO Finescale unless it has a back to back adjusted to over 14.5mm. So all RTR will jam in the points unless B2Bs adjusted.

 

However this may not be an issue for the OP

[martin_wynne]

the original poster had already declared his intention to build all the points using C+L components , and as OO Finescale is what you get if you use C+L gauges , this would not be an issue for him. He's also declared his intent to use Gibson wheels on all rolling stock. Presumably he's intending to rewheel any RTR rolling stock.

Hi Ravenser,

 

Your reading of the original poster seems to differ from mine. Dan6470 wrote:

 

I want to achieve the look of EM without the difficulties involved in adjusting/replacing wheels. I also don't particularly want to have to adjust wheels for the B2B to run on finescale track whatever the gauge. Out of the box and onto the rails is what I'm after, is that possible?

Which is exactly what 00-SF achieves, and which DOGA Fine doesn't.

 

I can't see where he says he intends to use C&L gauge tools. Gauge tools for 00-SF are available from the 00-SF group, and work perfectly with C&L track components.

 

Alan Gibson wheels supplied at 14.8mm BB will work as supplied on 00-SF (and 00-BF) if the flange thickness does not exceed 0.4mm. If the flange is thicker than that they will need closing up a fraction. I don't have any current production to hand to measure. But of course if Dan is using out-of-the-box RTR wheels as he says, they won't be Alan Gibson wheels.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

So...(deep breath)...if I'm going to build my own (C&L) track and turnouts and use current RTR Bachmann, Heljan and Hornby locos with rolling stock on Alan Gibson (or equivalent) wheelsets: what gauge do I go for to avoid the crossing wheel drop?

 

I did say take a deep breath...

 

Confusion with Mark C's posting here, I'm afraid . In respect of that, comments stand - 16.5mm /OO Finescale, and Ultrascales on the locos

[meple]

 

Alan Gibson wheels supplied at 14.8mm BB will work as supplied on 00-SF (and 00-BF) if the flange thickness does not exceed 0.4mm.

 

 

I don't think Gibbson wheels do come set-up for 14.8 mm BB. All the ones I buy you have to assemble yourself. To my knowledge AG wheels are to RP25 - 88 so 14.8 mm BB is probably not appropriate for the stated fine scale stds as they are based on RP25 - 110 to my understanding. That's the problem in blindly using the BB without understanding the basic geometric principles.

[martin_wynne]

I don't think Gibbson wheels do come set-up for 14.8 mm BB. All the ones I buy you have to assemble yourself.

Do you mean loco driving wheels or rolling-stock wheels? The latter are surely supplied ready assembled on pin-point axles?

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[gordon s]

Hi Ravenser,

 

Your reading of the original poster seems to differ from mine. Dan6470 wrote:

 

 

Which is exactly what 00-SF achieves, and which DOGA Fine doesn't.

 

I can't see where he says he intends to use C&L gauge tools. Gauge tools for 00-SF are available from the 00-SF group, and work perfectly with C&L track components.

 

Alan Gibson wheels supplied at 14.8mm BB will work as supplied on 00-SF (and 00-BF) if the flange thickness does not exceed 0.4mm. If the flange is thicker than that they will need closing up a fraction. I don't have any current production to hand to measure. But of course if Dan is using out-of-the-box RTR wheels as he says, they won't be Alan Gibson wheels.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Hi Martin, following this with interest. The Gibson driving wheels I have in front of me measure 0.5mm at the tip and 0.6mm at the root. If the BEF measurement is to be 15.2mm max, do I take it the B2B should be 14.6mm max? The problem I have seen with 1.2mm gaps is that Gibson wheels are dropping in a gap as they are just 2.25mm wide. The Romfords from Markits are 2.57mm wide and Bachmann's own, 2.87mm. This would probably explain why Bachmann and Markits wheels do not drop and Gibsons do.

 

As an aside, I have mailed stores@00-sf.org.uk for a set of gauges and not had a reply. OK, only three days, but I would have expected a response from someone, if only to say they got my mail.

 

I know, I'm an impatient b*gger........

[Ravenser]

Gordon S

Hi Martin, following this with interest. The Gibson driving wheels I have in front of me measure 0.5mm at the tip and 0.6mm at the root. If the BEF measurement is to be 15.2mm max, do I take it the B2B should be 14.6mm max? The problem I have seen with 1.2mm gaps is that Gibson wheels are dropping in a gap as they are just 2.25mm wide. The Romfords from Markits are 2.57mm wide and Bachmann's own, 2.87mm. This would probably explain why Bachmann and Markits wheels do not drop and Gibsons do.

 

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

Gibson wheels are to the 1979 EM profile and therefore meet the OO Finescale standard; Bachmann are to Kadar's understanding of RP25/110. Markits/Romfords are claimed to be "RP25/100" , a profile which does not appear on any NMRA datasheet I've ever seen , but which Markits indicate they found in a copy of the Model Railroader from the early 1960s

 

1.2mm (+/-0.05mm) is the value the DOGA OO Intermediate standard gives for flangeways. I'd certainly expect Gibson OO Finescale wheels to drop in the flangeways of OO Intermediate track. They aren't recommended for that - which is why when I built a Ratio GW open kit a couple of years ago I quietly substituted Hornby wheels set to 14.5mm from the packet in the cupboard, and pulled out the Gibsons supplied for use under a wagon I was doing for a friend who models in EM (I was short of EM wheelsets, and was born in Yorkshire)

 

Martin Wynne

Do you mean loco driving wheels or rolling-stock wheels? The latter are surely supplied ready assembled on pin-point axles?

 

 

Mark C referred to using Gibsons on the stock, so I take it he meant the ready assembled OO wheels on pin points. You will find these have a B2B of 14.8mm or 14.7mm (I think Alan Gibson may have decided to modify his B2B slightly a few years ago off his own bat and without any great publicity - another reason why a published standards sheet for OO Finescale is a highly desirable thing. Traders moving the goalposts in the night is not good for modellers)

 

As very little comes with Gibsons (RTR is someone's interpretation of RP25/110 , Parkside have Romfords and Cambrian have nowt) I took it that Mark C was already committed to a comprehensive rewheeling of all rolling stock

[gordon s]

I'm taking this all on board as it's very important if you want to achieve smooth running. One of the issues I have is one of so many differing standards with the need to continually cross reference this spec with that spec. It does seem to me at times that there is a mystique about standards and no idiots guide for those of us who are just putting our toes in the water.

 

This is not a complaint about Gibson Wheels, far from it as clearly they have some excellent products, but to pick up on your comment Ravenser, the description of their wheels just says 00 Finescale. I'm building my own track as I wanted to achieve something better than the coarse standards of RTR track. I now realise it is not 'Finescale' even though it is finer than RTR product. In fact it sits in the middle as 'Intermediate'.

 

OK, I now realise that and thankfully have a set of Markits wheels that run well. I know Gibson wheels will also run well but on Finescale track, perhaps not Intermediate track due to the narrower width of the wheel. The issue for me is lack of clarity in data sheets and catalogues. Surely it can't be beyond the wit of man to come up with a cross reference chart that clearly states what wheels are suitable for what track. Just saying Finescale is not enough. Is it right that I should have to find the DOGA standards to ascertain whether or not they will work? Perhaps it should say suitable for 00, 14.8mm B2B and 1mm flangeways.

 

I suspect those of you who have been modelling for years will happily read catalogues and data sheets with a basic description and your experience allows you to choose the right product every time. Why do we make such a mystique of things?

 

As we become more involved in modelling, yes we will learn about these things, but why do you have to have a Masters qualification? Surely it can be made simpler? Is it not possible to provide the basic statements in manufacturers data sheets to say what each product is suitable for or are we destined to have to research more and more before making a simple purchase.

[martin_wynne]

As an aside, I have mailed stores@00-sf.org.uk for a set of gauges and not had a reply. OK, only three days, but I would have expected a response from someone, if only to say they got my mail.

Hi Gordon,

 

That email address goes to Brian Tulley and as far as I know it is working ok. I believe Brian's work sometimes takes him away from home for a few days. Brian is a member of RMweb (polybear), so you could try a PM to: http://www.rmweb.co....r/289-polybear/

 

Alternatively, post a message on the 00-SF group asking about the current gauge tool situation: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/00-SF

 

-- I know Brian recently ordered a fresh batch from the toolmakers.

 

 

following this with interest. The Gibson driving wheels I have in front of me measure 0.5mm at the tip and 0.6mm at the root. If the BEF measurement is to be 15.2mm max, do I take it the B2B should be 14.6mm max?

Yes. The original BRMSB B-B setting for Scale 00 was 14.5mm ("EM minus 2" -- the B-B for EM is 16.5mm). It's unfortunate that Alan Gibson abandoned this (it had stood the test of time -- 60 years). I suggest reverting to it for all except DOGA Fine track. Romford/Markits 00 wheels are 14.5mm B-B anyway.

 

For commercial RTR the RP25/110 wheels have a thicker flange, and to keep within the 15.2mm BEF I suggest setting them to 14.4mm B-B. (Which is the standard NMRA B-B for H0 -- or at least it was for many years. They have recently changed the tolerancing in a retrograde direction in my view.)

 

 

The problem I have seen with 1.2mm gaps is that Gibson wheels are dropping in a gap as they are just 2.25mm wide. The Romfords from Markits are 2.57mm wide and Bachmann's own, 2.87mm. This would probably explain why Bachmann and Markits wheels do not drop and Gibsons do.

This is the problem with 00-BF (DOGA Intermediate). It doesn't provide proper support for all the wheels on the market, because suppliers are selling EM wheel profiles (2.3mm wide) for 00 use (should be 2.5mm min for BRMSB). The 00-SF option solves this problem.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

Hi Gordon,

 

That email address goes to Brian Tulley and as far as I know it is working ok. I believe Brian's work sometimes takes him away from home for a few days. Brian is a member of RMweb (polybear), so you could try a PM to: http://www.rmweb.co....r/289-polybear/

 

Alternatively, post a message on the 00-SF group asking about the current gauge tool situation: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/00-SF

 

-- I know Brian recently ordered a fresh batch from the toolmakers.

 

 

 

Yes. The original BRMSB B-B setting for Scale 00 was 14.5mm ("EM minus 2" -- the B-B for EM is 16.5mm). It's unfortunate that Alan Gibson abandoned this (it had stood the test of time -- 60 years). I suggest reverting to it for all except DOGA Fine track. Romford/Markits 00 wheels are 14.5mm B-B anyway.

 

For commercial RTR the RP25/110 wheels have a thicker flange, and to keep within the 15.2mm BEF I suggest setting them to 14.4mm B-B. (Which is the standard NMRA B-B for H0 -- or at least it was for many years. They have recently changed the tolerancing in a retrograde direction in my view.)

 

 

 

Quote

 

The problem I have seen with 1.2mm gaps is that Gibson wheels are dropping in a gap as they are just 2.25mm wide. The Romfords from Markits are 2.57mm wide and Bachmann's own, 2.87mm. This would probably explain why Bachmann and Markits wheels do not drop and Gibsons do.

 

 

 

This is the problem with 00-BF (DOGA Intermediate). It doesn't provide proper support for all the wheels on the market, because suppliers are selling EM wheel profiles (2.3mm wide) for 00 use (should be 2.5mm min for BRMSB). The 00-SF option solves this problem.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

 

Martin:

 

I don't see this as a "problem" with OO Intermediate because no track standard can fit 2 significantly different wheel standards properly . No track standard can "properly support all the wheels on the market" - because they differ. There is no such thing as "Universal" track, and the sooner we bury that unhappy term at a crossroads with a stake through its heart , the better

 

It needs to be said clearly and repeatedly - don't use Gibson wheels with OO Intermediate track.

 

Unhappily one of the unfortunate side effects of several decades of P4 and general finescale propaganda has been a delusion that the finer the wheel the better it will work. Consistancy is all here.

 

And, in a situation where there has been a widespread tacit understanding that OO standards should not be discussed except between consenting adults in private, we have ended up with a lot of people using Gibsons because they look pretty, regardless of the engineering consequences

 

The flaw in the BRMSB OO standards was that they were an afterthought, visibly cobbled together after the BRMSB had invented EM and tried to impose it on the hobby in place of OO . The hobby wouldn't have it, and so they had to bodge up a OO standard . (It is plain from the standards themselves that the BRMSB started with an HO finescale standard and created EM as HO Fine + 1.5mm , using a single standard wheel profile). BRMSB OO wheels are a bit too fine for BRMSB OO track

 

Gordon S

I'm taking this all on board as it's very important if you want to achieve smooth running. One of the issues I have is one of so many differing standards with the need to continually cross reference this spec with that spec. It does seem to me at times that there is a mystique about standards and no idiots guide for those of us who are just putting our toes in the water.

 

This is not a complaint about Gibson Wheels, far from it as clearly they have some excellent products, but to pick up on your comment Ravenser, the description of their wheels just says 00 Finescale. I'm building my own track as I wanted to achieve something better than the coarse standards of RTR track. I now realise it is not 'Finescale' even though it is finer than RTR product. In fact it sits in the middle as 'Intermediate'.

 

OK, I now realise that and thankfully have a set of Markits wheels that run well. I know Gibson wheels will also run well but on Finescale track, perhaps not Intermediate track due to the narrower width of the wheel. The issue for me is lack of clarity in data sheets and catalogues. Surely it can't be beyond the wit of man to come up with a cross reference chart that clearly states what wheels are suitable for what track. Just saying Finescale is not enough. Is it right that I should have to find the DOGA standards to ascertain whether or not they will work. Perhaps it should say suitable for 00, 14.8mm B2B and 1mm flangeways.

 

I suspect those of you who have been modelling for years will happily read catolgues and data sheets with a basic description and your experience allows you to choose the right product every time. Why do we make such a mystique of things?

 

As we become more involved in modelling, yes we will learn about these things, but why do you have to have a Masters qualification? Surely it can be made simpler? Is it not possible to provide the basic statements in manufacturers data sheets to say what each product is suitable for or are we destined to have to research more and more before making a simple purchase.

 

You have my entire sympathy.

 

The real problem is that we've had decades of radio silence on the issue of OO standards in print , enforced by media who don't want to touch the issue, trade who don't want a spotlight shone on their ducks and dives and inconsistancies , and a very organised and vociferous finescale lobby in P4 and EM who I'm sure in many cases actively prefer to see anarchy rule in OO and do not want to see effective OO wheel and track standards , because it would rob them of their best weapon to push people to change gauge. I am rather tired of the scale society recruiting aid which involves nailing a length of peco code 100 next to a nicely ballasted bit of C+L to their own gauge with a notice saying "change to XYZ18.A - So much better and your trains won't fall off"

 

Gordon S

Just saying Finescale is not enough

 

Couldn't agree more. Especially when "Finescale" is used by different people to mean different things. And when what Peco call "Finescale" is coarser than what Branchlines call "Universal"

 

I think there is a DOGA datasheet which does provide a matrix of what goes with what , and what will work approiximately , though it won't be 100 % comprehensive

 

But I suspect that a lot of experienced people are in fact confused on the issue as well.

 

As as example - I think Inter City Models offer in their "Superroller" wheel range P4 wheels set to 16.5mm gauge as "improved OO wheels" - and no, they don't seem to be selling them for P87 /HO Pur. This, obviously, is madness - but someone thinks they are a good idea to make and someone must be buying them under the misapprehension that they are better....

 

The only immediate remedy I can see is at least to talk about the issue in public places like this , so that basic information about what products match starts to circulate in the hobby.

 

The DOGA standards are at least publically available, and define 2 coherent consistant standards packages. They provide a basis for comparison and identification of individual products. Before , we just had a fog of confusion

 

 

 

 

 

 

[martin_wynne]

Martin: I don't see this as a "problem" with OO Intermediate because no track standard can fit 2 significantly different wheel standards properly. No track standard can "properly support all the wheels on the market" - because they differ. There is no such thing as "Universal" track

Hi Ravenser,

 

That's true. But for any given track there is an "envelope" of wheel standards which will run acceptably well. The great advantage of 00-SF is that the "envelope" is just about wide enough to include most RTR wheels (as supplied) at one extreme, and the EM wheel profile at the other extreme. Plus traditional "Scale 00" wheels (Romford/Markits) in the middle.

 

Which means that by adopting 00-SF you can run all 3 wheel standards together and without bumping on the crossings. None of the other 00 track standards offer this.

 

It's not perfect. If you were running only RTR wheels, 00-BF (DOGA Intermediate) is more tolerant of poor manufacturing quality control, and standards variations.

 

If you were running only EM profile wheels, there's an argument for going a bit tighter, say 0.9mm flangeways on 16.1mm gauge. This would give a bit more scope to correctly model the blunt nose on crossing vees.

 

But as it stands 00-SF splits the difference and makes the best of a bad job.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Guest Max Stafford]

Stephen, thanks for the in depth explanation and especially the diagram, without which the 'root curve' concept wouldn't have been so clear to me. It's an interesting thread and to be honest I'd no idea there was this much to humble 00! I was under the impression that modern models had their wheels made to RP25 profile, but it seems I was hugely mistaken. At least my kit-built locos have RP25 wheels though as I use the new finer scale Markits sets on my new-builds. My track, such as it is consists of SMP and now Shinohara items. I'm hoping this will help keep things simple, but having taken little to do with track standards apart from developing a strong preference for code 75, I'm still on the learning curve.

As it were...

 

Dave.