Guest bri.s Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Mr Ravenser, I have no idea who you are, whether you hold office in any organisation, or whatever. I have no issues with anything you do or say. I have no axe to grind about OO-SF, DOGA, 4-SF in fact I don't have a model railway at present although I am building two for other people (one is 3.5mm HO and HOm; the other 4mm OO all on Peco - not my choice- theirs) But I can tell you the reason that you are the subject of so much intrigue, speculation and maybe even a little ridicule from some quarters. It is simply because you will not let it go. If you just accepted that some people want to model in OO-SF/4-SF and wished them well and showed interest in the results they achieve and celebrated their successes with them and commiserated with any failures all would be easy. But you don't. All you ever seem to do is criticise what other people want to do and tell them/infer/suggest they are wrong to try it. Nobody understands why you do this. By all means question their reasoning, discuss the technical aspects, offer constructive criticism but your general tone seems rather one of destructive negativity seemingly based on your own preferences. If people are wrong they'll soon find out. Some people only learn by making mistakes. And at the end of the day what's it to you if they go off down the wrong road? Let them. And btw I don't know anybody else on this thread either. Me? I now ignore your posts on this subject as they are largely irrelevant to me. But as Martin mentioned earlier the correction of errors, misunderstandings and the suggestion of alternatives to 'facts' by he and other informed correspondents is needed as it could confuse others coming to this forum, thread and topic. Which nobody, I assume, wants. You'll note that I have used the words 'seem' seems' 'seemingly' etc. I suspect that at the end of the day you don't want to discourage railway modelling, I would like to believe that you are in favour of technical progress and take the view that just because something is different doesn't mean it is bad. I think it's because people don't understand where you are coming from that causes the interest. Like you I would like to see more layouts in OO-SF/4-SF but they take time. (I would like to see more - non-Peco tracked layouts generally whether they be, DOGA, EM, P4, or whatever) When I build my own layout in earnest which should be in the new year I propose to try the OO-SF/4SF concept/standard. I will test it first of course. But the concept and what it seems to offer meet my present needs. Please don't take offence at what I have written, I mean no ill to you or anybody else. But you did ask why people write about you. Regards Richard Slipper Norwich Spot on ,can't say it better than that Brian 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 I've just got back from work. In the 22 hours since I last posted in this thread, there have been an amazing 40 posts, all from a limited number of supporters of the OO-SF concept Most of those posts have been hostile speculation /criticism about myself or about DOGA. Nearly all the rest have been about Marmite. I think you are the only person who has actually posted comments about anything substantive (which I'll reply to separately) A week or ten days ago I posted nothing in the thread for 5 days, prompting all sorts of postings to the effect "where is Ravenser? Why does Ravenser not comment???" When I eventually made a brief posting noting that I had been away at a show , that kicked off a 24 hour feeding frenzy almost entirely comprised of OO-SF supporters speculating about me There are certainly keyboard warriors posting in this thread, in support of OO-SF. Indeed I'm starting to think that one reason for the remarkable absence of completed layouts to OO-SF standards is that the main advocates and supporters of it spend all their time on here, posting frenziedly in support of the concept day after day, week after week Ravenser or is it Mr Siddle Those who you brand "keyboard warriors" to my mind certainly in the area of hand built track are some of the most helpful people on this forum, you seem to have the knack of rubbing up the wrong way constantly.We should thank you for promoting 00sf so much. You have been politely asked to come clean with the reasons why you are so against a set of standards which many find so appealing. Also you have been asked to clarify any positions you have or had with the DOGA. Please show every one who has queried your opposition to 00sf the courtesy and answer these questions. By the way, those five days were bliss, as have been the past 22 hours. For once please do something constructive 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 20, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 20, 2015 You appear to be saying that in your view the EMGS wheel standard is mismatched with the EMGS track standard? Yes, that is my view. The ideal wheel profile for use with a 1.0mm flangeway is the Romford/Markits "RP25/100" profile. That is wheels 2.5mm wide with a 0.7mm flange thickness. Set at 14.5mm back-to-back for 4-SF and 16.5mm back-to-back for EM. This provides a 0.3mm running clearance on non-gauge-widened track, which is just about right to provide steady running when short-wheelbase stock is being propelled, and sufficient clearance for longer wheelbase stock running on gentle curves. On sharp curves some gauge-widening is needed to increase the running clearance. In practice for 4-SF this is often provided by means of 16.5mm flexi-track. For EM, gauge-widened track needs to be hand-built. Users are reporting good results running RTR wheels (RP-25/110) which provide less than 0.3mm running clearance, so it follows that 0.3mm clearance is entirely adequate as a design figure. We are of course assuming here that the model rail section is a good representation of the prototype with 1/2" top corner radius. The flange thicknesses quoted are the effective flange (EF) when running hard against such rail. It does appear that in originating the 1979 profile, insufficient account has been taken of the proper modelling of a blunt nose on the crossing. The same applies generally across the hobby -- for example the Gauge 0 Guild's standards, and even the MRSG in creating P4 widened the flangeways from strict prototype without any corresponding increase in wheel width. To provide full support through crossings the minimum wheel width has to span 2 flangeways, a blunt nose, the top corner radius on one wing rail, and in addition allow for a small chamfer on the wheel between face and tread. In 4mm/ft scale using 1.0mm flangeways (3" scale) this equates to full sizes: 2 x 3" + 3/4" nose (bullhead) + 1/2" radius + say 1/4" chamfer. That makes a minimum wheel width of 7.5" scale which is 2.5mm. i.e. equivalent to Romford/Markits. In practice we can safely ignore the full rail corner 1/2" radius and allow only say 1/4" of it, and pretend the wheel face/tread corner is dead sharp, saving another 1/4". So that gets us down to 7" scale as a practical minimum, which is 2.33mm (code 92). So you can see that 1979 kit wheels 2.2mm/2.3mm wide (code 88) are in fact sub-optimal on 1.0mm flangeways. In fact they are found to run adequately well, but this analysis does show why they are so unsatisfactory on wider flangeways such as 00-BF. At least if blunt nose crossings are properly modelled. Some improvement is possible using sharp-nose crossings, but these look ludicrous to anyone familiar with permanent way. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) I have to say Stephen, you do make me chuckle with your classic forum tactics. Find a subject that you have no real interest in, wind everyone up along the way and then wait for the replies. Only problem is that eventually the genuine posters start to get near the truth and start to question your motives. No problem, you can cry foul at this point and accuse everyone of personal attacks etc and play the wounded party in the whole thing. The sadness over this whole affair is that you clearly are an intelligent person with considerable knowledge on track and wheel standards. As current or past Treasurer of DOGA you have a golden opportunity to increase the membership by some margin by talking about all the positives that DOGA can offer and welcoming several skilled modellers to your ranks. The joke of the whole thing is that DOGA state their focus is 00 scale using 16.5mm track. We all know 00-SF doesn't comply with that condition, so it should be of no interest to you or DOGA and yet you continue this tirade against decent modellers. You have created this whole situation by criticising our work and methods at every opportunity and then have the cheek to suggest you are the injured party. Rather than blame everyone else, maybe it's time for you to sit quietly and consider the effect your actions have had on others in this community. Edited October 21, 2015 by gordon s Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 But isn't this 'argument' just the same as the fall out between EM and the breakaway P4 back in nineteen hundred and sepia? Two groups that should be natural allies arguing. The Life of Brian scene where they are arguing "it's a shoe" "no it's a sandal" is a good comparison. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 21, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) But isn't this 'argument' just the same as the fall out between EM and the breakaway P4 back in nineteen hundred and sepia? Oh no it isn't. Edited October 26, 2015 by martin_wynne Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) I see our friend (being careful of not upsetting him and being branded a keyboard warrior) has yet again failed reasonable requests to state his reasons for his hostility to this gauge, confirm his past and present association with the DOGA and confirm his name. I and others feel these are reasonable requests and certainly the first may assist the OP with his question On the other hand he may well be taking up the suggestion to build a turnout to 00sf standards to prove his point !!, but then it may as others have found disprove his assumptions and we have a new convert Now back to the question 28 pages ago, the answer is "Not only does it look better but it also works" Edited October 21, 2015 by hayfield 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trustytrev Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 Hello, Does DOGA have a members committee or is it just a one man band run in a dictatorial way by a single person.Either way it is impossible to view it in a positive light.If it has a committee their silence with regard to the conduct of a single member speaks volumes about their lack of respect or consideration for the views and choices of others.If it is a one man band is it anything other than irrelevant to the activities of a group of like minded modellers who choose to be different? I like 00-SF / 4-SF. I also like Australian Shiraz and wines from Chile can be nice as well. Pinot Noir can be quite good as well.Yellow Tail do a nice Shiraz as well. If you don't try something you are not really in a position to make a rational decision either way really. Unless you represent the the unsolicited opinions of DOGA of course it would appear! trustytrev. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 Does that also apply to those who were denigrating Marmite earlier on? If you don't try something you are not really in a position to make a rational decision either way really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymw Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I think there is some useful info on the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegemite Shows how things evolve, like standards, etc, but then manufacturers do their own thing for whatever reason, and try and build a fan base. Marmite/model railways all the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 28, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 28, 2015 This post on RMweb today is a sad indictment of the present situation for 00 gauge modellers: http://www.rmweb.co....-5#entry2069516 Brought about mainly I would say by DOGA, who in publishing the DOGA-Fine standard, and watching C&L for years sell DOGA-Fine kits and gauges without any explanation of what that involved and the consequences, have done 00 modellers no favours whatsoever. It is now over 40 years, yes 40, since the blindingly obvious solution of changing the track gauge rather than the back-to-back was seen by Roy Miller, Frank Dyer and others as the best way to create a finer-scale version of 00. I was manufacturing 00 pointwork to order at that time, could clearly see the advantage of that approach, and adopted it for my 00 products. My 00 customers agreed, and were entirely satisfied with my "EM minus 2" (now 4-SF) products. If DOGA had done some proper research on behalf of 00 modellers who they claimed to be helping, they could have adopted 4-SF (00-SF) "EM minus 2" as their fine-scale standard, and so much heartache, confusion and disappointment in recent years could have been avoided. If DOGA are seriously claiming to represent and support the 00 modelling community in the UK, it is not too late to do something about it: 1. withdraw and deprecate the existing DOGA-Fine standard. 2. post clear warnings and explanations about which trade products are being supplied to this standard and the consequences of using them. 3. adopt "EM minus 2" as their new Fine standard, under whatever name they wish to give it. They wouldn't need to do much work, all the information is already on the web and can be simply linked to: http://4-sf.uk Martin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 That post is very sad especially when the person wanted to improve his trackwork. There seems to be a problem between his plans which were drawn in Templot to 00bf (DOGA intermediate) and what he got which was DOGA fine. There seems to have been a misunderstanding over 00 gauge standards This must be a prime example of why someone should use 00sf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardS Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Surely, the dilemma faced by the chap in the other thread is not unique. How many people have given up in despair I wonder. Being quite a novice in these areas it seems to me that the problem is DOGA fine. Even Mr Ravenser (and I use the 'Mr' politely not sarcastically - I don't know him and I hate these 'Top Gun' style handles) uses DOGA intermediate. Surely the time is right for the great and good to come together to agree what OO standards are. This would help manufacturers and modellers? With Warley in 4 weeks time what better place to start the ball rolling? The foundations are there already. Just a thought. I'm also puzzled by one omission. DOGA have fine and intermediate. What happened to something below intermediate? Regards Richard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardS Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Ah, apologies just seen dialogue on other thread re standards. Would edit previous post but using mobile version so limited. Just ignore me again! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 I think Martin is correct. DOGA fine needs to be abandoned. Perhaps it made sense at some point in time, but it serves no purpose now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) I hope I'm not opening a can of worms here but, since both use a nominal gauge of16.5mm and, so far as I know, similar wheel profiles and B to Bs on most proprietary vehicles, is there any reason why I shouldn't use 4-SF rail standards for 1:87 scale? This struck me yesterday when I was investigating some ancient Pecoway FB and more modern SMP bullhead points built to BRMSB specs (whatever they were at that time). Fairly modern European H0 stock that does show some wheel drop through modern Streamline points passed over them far more smoothly presumably thanks to the narrower crossing clearances. Obviously the sleeper dimensions are different but the critical rail dimensions should surely be the same. I'm not by the way suggesting the use of NMRA's HO standards, it's H0 I'm thinking of not American HO. Edited October 29, 2015 by Pacific231G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 29, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 29, 2015 is there any reason why I shouldn't use 4-SF rail standards for 1:87 scale? Hi David, None at all. AMRA (Australian Model Railway Association) have a very similar standard, 16.25mm / 1.05mm with the same 15.2mm check gauge. It is called H0-SF in Templot: For UK use I suggest staying with the 4-SF (00-SF) gauges from C&L, i.e. 16.2mm / 1.0mm. The difficulty may be sourcing suitable 3.5mm rail to fit the gauges, 4mm scale rail will be oversize for 3.5mm/ft. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Surely, the dilemma faced by the chap in the other thread is not unique. How many people have given up in despair I wonder. Being quite a novice in these areas it seems to me that the problem is DOGA fine. Even Mr Ravenser (and I use the 'Mr' politely not sarcastically - I don't know him and I hate these 'Top Gun' style handles) uses DOGA intermediate. Surely the time is right for the great and good to come together to agree what OO standards are. This would help manufacturers and modellers? With Warley in 4 weeks time what better place to start the ball rolling? The foundations are there already. Just a thought. I'm also puzzled by one omission. DOGA have fine and intermediate. What happened to something below intermediate? Regards Richard Richard No need to apologise in my humble opinion as you have made a good observation, many may have made a good job at building a turnout. But with no fault of their own they have bought a track gauge which for setting the wing and check rails is totally inappropriate to their needs. I for one have mentioned that the check/wing rail parts on a roller gauge should not be there, especially for DOGA fine where check and wing rail gauges are far more appropriate. Had those modellers bought the correct gauges the chances are they would be more successful I guess one could argue that Martin has taken the first step in making things clearer by calling 00sf 4sf, it may be a good idea for the DOAG altering the name of their finescale gauge DOGA fine so that these simple misunderstandings may be avoided I hope I'm not opening a can of worms here but, since both use a nominal gauge of16.5mm and, so far as I know, similar wheel profiles and B to Bs on most proprietary vehicles, is there any reason why I shouldn't use 4-SF rail standards for 1:87 scale? This struck me yesterday when I was investigating some ancient Pecoway FB and more modern SMP bullhead points built to BRMSB specs (whatever they were at that time). Fairly modern European H0 stock that does show some wheel drop through modern Streamline points passed over them far more smoothly presumably thanks to the narrower crossing clearances. Obviously the sleeper dimensions are different but the critical rail dimensions should surely be the same. I'm not by the way suggesting the use of NMRA's HO standards, it's H0 I'm thinking of not American HO. David I guess there is no problem in using 00sf check rail gauges for H0 gauge, provided one checks the wheels being used are compatible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 John Does your comment about wing/check spacing on roller gauges concern all gauges and scales or just this very specific example?I have read the same type of comment several times before, but can see no reason for it- so that's why I wonder if your comment is gauge specific. Derek Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Derek I have gone on record several times saying my preference is for no check/wing rail gauges on roller gauges, just bought some Allan Gibson EM gauge roller gauges without these. So the answer is all, but with 00 universal as the tolerances are so coarse at a push keep them Firstly a simple wing should not only cheap to both make and sell but also makes fitting them so much easier Secondly anyone who has built P4, EM or 00sf turnouts will confirm the benefits of check rail gauges, lets face it with 00 gauge especially you can get away a bit + or - on the stock rail, its the check rail that does all the work I would also argue that as well as check and wing rail gauges block rail gauges in 00 gauge are also very useful. Can someone please explain why 00 gauge modellers have to put up with being the poor relation in track building ? I can understand that 3 point gauges are not required in 00 gauge owing to the wheels not needing gauge widening on sharp curves, but the old Hambling's style 3 point gauge is quite useful in some instances (I have 3 but they are for code 100 rail) where roller gauges can be a bit awkward. Flats pre made on roller gauges are also very useful for common crossings and for setting the stock gauge. Now if both the EM and P/S4 gauge societies provide these one wonders why there is not an 00 gauge society providing this and other services to 00 gauge modellers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Whilst there are some incredibly talented 00 track builders, from what I have seen the majority of 00 modellers don't seem to see the need to build their own 00 based track, which probably explains the reason for the absence of appropriate tools. What someone should do is start a group for 00 modellers. Call it the 00 gauge association. Or double o gauge association or something. Maybe even abbreviate it to DOGA. Now that's a name to inspire- a well run, dynamic organisation that reaches out to 00 modellers and whilst never insulting other gauges/scales wants to interact with them.But no, that's too far fetched for reality. As for roller gauges, surely if they are machined correctly.... Derek Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 29, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) Does your comment about wing/check spacing on roller gauges concern all gauges and scales or just this very specific example? I have read the same type of comment several times before, but can see no reason for it- so that's why I wonder if your comment is gauge specific. Hi Derek, This applies to all gauges and scales. No gauge should have more than 2 slots. There are two reasons for this: 1. Multi-slot gauges make it impossible, or at least extremely difficult, to test the track for accuracy. If a multi-slot gauge won't fit the track, it is very difficult to know which rail is in error, and very easy to adjust the wrong one, making matters worse. 2. On sharp curves, gauge-widening is sometimes needed. Where this applies the check rail gap must increase by the same amount as the track gauge. You can't do that if the check rail gap is fixed by the roller gauge. In fact the check rail gap should never be set directly, and you don't need a gauge for it. The running rail and the check rail are each set separately with their own gauges, and the gap is whatever you end up with between them after that. The folks who know what they are doing, such as the Scalefour Society and EM Gauge Society, provide proper sets of gauges with separate check gauges, i.e. no gauge has more than 2 slots, and a separate shim for setting the crossing flangeways (wing rails). regards, Martin. Edited October 29, 2015 by martin_wynne typo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Derek Very tongue in cheek. But you have hit the nail on the head. EM morphed from 18 mm gauge to 18.2 and the P/S4 groups also joined forces and they both seem to have been able to take the trade with them. In 00 gauge it seems to be a free for all As for hand built track, in the past building your own turnouts was partly out of financial necessity. But also we had local model shops which stocked parts and tools, and was in the position of being able to advise on building methods. With these shops now long gone its down to clubs and sites like this to pass on information. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 This applies to all gauges and scales. No gauge should have more than 2 slots. There are two reasons for this: and, ideally, both slots should be spring loaded to force the rail hard against the gauge piece. Fixed width slots must have some clearance to accommodate the widest rail that is in tolerance. Problem is, the sales volume for gauges is very small. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 29, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 29, 2015 and, ideally, both slots should be spring loaded to force the rail hard against the gauge piece. Fixed width slots must have some clearance to accommodate the widest rail that is in tolerance. Yes. It is not too difficult to arrange for a plain roller track gauge -- at the minimum just a bit of bent paper-clip inserted in a hole in the end of the gauge or soldered onto it. Unfortunately it is trickier for the check gauge, and needs a workshop to make a proper sprung check gauge. And of course it is the check gauge which is the most important... It is also difficult to make a sprung gauge-widening 3-point gauge without a workshop. For those who have to use what the trade provides, I suggest packing the slots with kitchen aluminium foil if the rail is a loose fit. It's fiddly, but doable. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now