Andy Reichert Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Maths Alert (I like to approximate 1mm as 0.040"). NMRA reference link: http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/pdf/S-3.2%202010.02.24.pdf For those that can decipher the NMRA standards, the turnout flangeways are surprisingly asymmetrical, at gauge min (16.5 mm). I.e. With the check gauge at max., the check rail gap is somewhere around only 0.035" (0.9 mm) if the crossing flange way is set at 0.050" (1.25 mm). Note however that even the NMRA crossing flangeway min is allowed to be as small as 0.035" (also 0.9mm), although one has to be careful not to break any of the other dimensions if taking it that low.. The unfortunate situation with many past US RTR turnouts is that they mistakenly widened the gauge at the crossings, to make the check flangeways seem more symmetrical, particularly as the then NMRA standards gave the gauge max as a top tolerance, rather than indicating it was only for gauge widening on curves. The (really!) good news for finer flangeway lovers, is that you can merely move the crossing flangeway inwards, to make it much closer, while at the same time increasing the check flangeway to balance, so the span is not compromised, and still not need to reduce the gauge below 16.5 mm. That's often quite simple and straightforward to do to existing, even laid, hand built and RTR turnouts. Here is a quick scan of a recent Peco US code 83 crossing. I get a consistent 0.650" for the gauge, and what seems to be somewhat reduced flangeways as per above, although it's getting a bit late to hold my dial caliper steady to be certain of the gaps sizes. Maybe one of you can measure off the picture? Off the top of my head, I think a symmetrical 0.044" ( 1.1 mm) is perfectly easy, and my old friends at Central Valley I KNOW have their whole huge NWP layout built with 0.40" (1 mm) crossings, and whatever check flangeway that works out as, while still keeping to 16.5 mm for their track gauge, and yet using completely smooth running "finescale" wheels of their own manufacture on most of their cars. I am just now being called for kitchen chores by my own dear SWMBO, so will not stay do the maths for everyone here at this time. But hopefully, someone else will. TIA Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 For the life of me I can't understand why there are all these arguments as soon as 00-SF is mentioned. It's almost if it's the work of the devil…:-) As a user, it works for me and all I can do is pass on my own experience. Whether or not you use it is entirely up to you and ultimately of no consequence to me. It seems as soon as 00-SF is talked about all the specs and arguments against are rolled out as if to stop something that is going to ruin everyone's lives. It's simply a variation on 00 that appears to work. Where is the harm in that? It's not going to change my life and won't damage anyone who is not using it, so why all the arguments to and fro? I did chuckle when I saw the statement that 'the visual difference between a 1.25mm flangeway and a 1.0mm flangeway is slight in comparison' particularly when the even smaller 0.15mm gauge narrowing on each rail of 00-SF is put forward as a huge argument against. Hopefully my scan of a 00-SF turnout will lay that old chestnut to rest..:-) I have to agree with Martin, if you don't like the idea of 00-SF, then don't use it. Equally so, those of us who find the benefits to be real will continue to enjoy trouble free running with 00-SF even if there may be other ways to achieve similar results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Gordon Well said and I like you cannot see what all the fuss is about. Yes OO-sf may be a clone of EM, but what is wrong of taking the best of one gauge to improve another. I have experience with building trackwork in P4, EM, OO-sf and for the want of a better title OO universal in both code 75 and 100, I have no experance on Proto 87 (or what ever it is called) so am not in a position to make comments and statements about that scale/gauge, Yes OO would and does look better with correct 4 mm scale sleeper widths and spacing than OO using 3.5 mm scale sleeper width and spacings OO-fs does look better than OO universal in and around the common crossings and with modern wheels stock run better through it EM is a great improvement in looks and running than OO universal even though it uses over scale wheel thread and flanges to enable better running, down side is that wheels have to be re-gauged/replaced on RTR stock Yes P4 for the purest does look better as is closer to the real thing both in wheel profile and track standards, but takes a lot more effort in obtaining reliable running and suffers the same as EM in converting RTR stock No one if forcing anyone to use any gauge what so ever, OO-sf is a step up from OO in finer track standards without the problem of having to change/re-gauge wheel sets. Lets face it probably the best collection of 4 mm coaching stock in private hands (Coachmans) runs on OO universal track, admittedly the skill of laying and weathering the Peco finescale track is of the same quality of his painting of the stock, but I have never seen anyone tell Larry the wheels look lousy and spoil the coaches. Gordon thanks for explaining your transition from OO-sf to OO gauge within the turnout Lets get back to modelling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugsley Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 It's almost if it's the work of the devil…:-)Hmm, now you come to mention it... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 and there was ignorant old me thinking that the gauge wars were restricted to P4 vs EM vs OO. Interesting and informative explanations all the same. I have no problem with anyone doing their own thing or following their own track religion, just don't try to force it on me and definitely don't try to convince me that my chosen belief is somehow inferior. It is only railway modelling, it is all only a "train set". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 22, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted March 22, 2014 I have no problem with anyone doing their own thing or following their own track religion, just don't try to force it on me and definitely don't try to convince me that my chosen belief is somehow inferior. It is only railway modelling, it is all only a "train set". Hi Kenton, Where in this topic has anyone tried to force anything on you? Or suggested that your modelling is inferior? But we have to have words to describe things. This is what I mean by the term "train set": This is what I mean by the term "finescale": from: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/37186-barnstaple-junction-in-em-gauge/ If you don't like those words, please suggest some alternatives. Or are we expected to say that there is no difference, and the same dimensions and methods are equally applicable to both? regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dasatcopthorne Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Hi Guys. I've been using 00-SF for a few years now and have built quite a lot of track to this gauge. It works. Transitions? Please yourself where you put them. I've song since given up replying to postings by Ravenser. I really don't know why he bothers posting his objections either! Just let us get on with it. I think I remember once reading a post by Ravenser saying that no one had built a layout to 00-SF that worked. Well, some of us have now. No one is trying to get anyone else to use this gauge, just offering it as an alternative. Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Martin, don't spoil it, I found your post very informative along with Gordon's image on gauge widening answering the same question in my head (but not asked by me). My comment was about the general deterioration of this topic towards the oh-so-familiar gauge wars. Something I admit to take part in because it seems so often to be posed by those who model in self-appointed "fine scale" when in reality all they are doing is being different. Often proclaiming that just because their chosen track standard is closer to 1:1 track that somehow that makes their model "fine scale" in entirety where as a modeller who chooses to use RTR OO cannot possibly be "fine scale". As far as I am concerned there is no such thing as "fine scale" and it's use is an insult to all modellers who are content to model with RTR. It is so often used to class inferiority, a them and us. It is not a matter of being forced, more a case of being preached at. We all have train sets, it is just that some look and work better than others, it is a personal assessment on where in that range one can place any particular layout. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 I have no problem with anyone doing their own thing or following their own track religion, just don't try to force it on me and definitely don't try to convince me that my chosen belief is somehow inferior. It is only railway modelling, it is all only a "train set". I can't speak for Martin, but I took your post as very supportive, Kenton and totally agree with the sentiment. I'm also quite fed up with others telling me 00-SF doesn't work and that I should be using something else. In the same vein, I respect others rights to make their own choice and that's one of the reasons I'm not telling anyone what they should do. I can only report favourable experiences with 00-SF and I won't change as it does what I want it to do with the absolute minimum of adjustment. Whether others believe that is not my call. Equally so, don't try and show me it doesn't work, because it does... This is a wide hobby with dozens of ways of arriving at similar results. They each have their own plus points and shortcomings and basically 'you pays your money and makes yer choice' I just wish people would accept that and stop trying to convince me otherwise. The day that I'm not happy with 00-SF then I'll do my own research and make my own decision as to where I want to go next. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 22, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted March 22, 2014 As far as I am concerned there is no such thing as "fine scale" and it's use is an insult to all modellers who are content to model with RTR. It is so often used to class inferiority, a them and us. Hi Kenton, I think it is all in your mind. Some recent RTR products are fine, scale models. I illustrated two sorts of model railway, without any suggestion that one is better than the other. But I think it is obvious that they are two different things. We need words to describe that difference, otherwise we can't have a sensible discussion. It would be ridiculous to suggest that 00-SF is suitable for one sort, whereas it is eminently suitable for the other sort. Without words to clarify the difference, any discussion is meaningless and confusing to the reader. If you don't like the words I used, what words would you suggest? regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Hi Kenton, SNIP Without words to clarify the difference, any discussion is meaningless and confusing to the reader. If you don't like the words I used, what words would you suggest? regards, Martin. S4 , P4 , EM, UK 00, SM. 4mm/ft and 3.5 mm/ft are scales. Some clearly designated mix of more than one scaling ratio or localized specific overriding dimensions isn't a scale, it's a specification, or in the special case parlance of controlled off-scale wheels and track for model railways, it's called a Standard. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 22, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted March 22, 2014 S4 , P4 , EM, UK 00, SM. I was referring to these words: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/81514-new-00-sf-turnout-kits-and-gauges-from-dcc-concepts-and-cl/page-3&do=findComment&comment=1391913 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian_H Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 So, can somebody explain, what's H0-SF? and can I use it with Peco code 100? ..................................... perhaps I better get m' coat;) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dungrange Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 I did chuckle when I saw the statement that 'the visual difference between a 1.25mm flangeway and a 1.0mm flangeway is slight in comparison' particularly when the even smaller 0.15mm gauge narrowing on each rail of 00-SF is put forward as a huge argument against. Hopefully my scan of a 00-SF turnout will lay that old chestnut to rest..:-) I have to agree with Martin, if you don't like the idea of 00-SF, then don't use it. Equally so, those of us who find the benefits to be real will continue to enjoy trouble free running with 00-SF even if there may be other ways to achieve similar results. Thanks for your scan showing the position of transitions in the pointwork that you have constructed: it helps. I'm also glad to hear that you enjoy trouble free running. As far as I am concerned, I have two issues with ready to run pointwork: sleeper spacing and the flangeway gap. To get the sleeper spacing 'correct' means that I will have to hand build points (or rather assemble kits). However, to get the flangeway gap down to 1.0 mm requires one of two approaches: increase the back to back dimension (to 14.8mm) of all of my stock (which probably means I then can't run it on a club layout); or leave the check and wing rails the same distance apart but narrow the gauge (ie 00-SF) As you say, there are other ways to achieve similar results, but as far as I am concerned 00-SF seems like the most logical choice. Anyone who can't see the visual difference between a 1.25 mm flangeway and a 1.0 mm flangeway will clearly not be able to see the difference between a track gauge of 16.2 mm and 16.5 mm within a turnout. Therefore, although I initially thought it was lunacy to adopt a narrower gauge, now that I understand the reasons, I think I will probably become a convert. I just need to finish my baseboards first. Regards David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dungrange Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 The issue is the B2B not the wheel profile. Thanks for this. Thankfully I don't have a lot of Heljan or Dapol stock, but I will check the wagons I do have. I think I have about six Heljan wagons and closer to a dozen Dapol wagons, but no locomotives from either manufacturer. If I have to replace wheelsets on stock produced by manufacturers who don't conform to the usual 14.4 - 14.5 mm standard, then so be it. Surely that is a problem with certain manufacturers rather than the 00-SF standard per se. Most of my stock is Bachmann, which I notice you haven't highlighted as being problematic. You therefore haven't put me off considering 00-SF as the standard that I will adopt when I get to trackwork. Regards David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 23, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted March 23, 2014 So, can somebody explain, what's H0-SF? and can I use it with Peco code 100? ..................................... perhaps I better get m' coat;) Hi Ian, Terry Flynn has produced the standards for H0-SF, which are essentially the same as 00-SF: http://www.amra.asn.au/finewheeltrack.pdf His specified wheel width is a bit too narrow to allow the use of prototypical blunt-nose vees. A minimum wheel width of 2.25mm (RP25/88) is needed for 00-SF and H0-SF. Certainly you can use it with Peco code 100 plain track. The rail size is immaterial. edit: p.s. congratulations on correctly writing H0 instead of HO. I thought that was a battle well and truly lost. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Martin You have ruined my morning, there is me carefully doing OO & HO when all the time I have been wrong its 00 and H0 then. I guess iff it was gauge 1,2,3 etc then 0 is obvious but O looks so much nicer being like me very round.; I will do a hundred lines 0 not O Have a good morning all Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 So it IS "zero" or "nought" gauge and not "Oh" gauge after all! Then it makes sense as "half zero" and "zero zero" or "half nought" and "naughty naughty" gauge Odd that "N" was adopted as a alpha character rather than some obscure fraction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian_H Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Hi Ian, Terry Flynn has produced the standards for H0-SF, which are essentially the same as 00-SF: edit: p.s. congratulations on correctly writing H0 instead of HO. I thought that was a battle well and truly lost. regards, Martin. Hi Martin Thanks for that, I was just messing about trying to lighten the topic a little. With regard to H0, when you say it (aytch nought) it doesn't sound right does it? I think just about everybody calls it HO although if my Dad had seen H0 written he would probably have pronouced it "aytch ought". However, since you did answer my frivolouse question about HO opps H0-SF and Peco code 100, I think I have mentioned before that I would be interested in having ago but I would be matching the code 100, does anybody produce chairs for code 100 flat bottom rail? Of course Peco do the 'IL-112 Pandrol type rail fixings' but they're too modern for what I want. Thanks Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Odd that "N" was adopted as a alpha character rather than some obscure fraction. Well it was originally '000' in the number gauge series, with a scale of 2mm/foot as used by Lonestar with their Treblo-lectric. But then it was commercialised with a 9mm gauge by Arnold et al and 'N' chosen as the initial letter of Nine in most European languages, Peco and the RM were instrumental in pushing that usage in the UK. (And choosing 1:148 instead of the original 1:152 or the continental 1:160) That 1:148 is the real oddity, 1:152 would have been the sensible choice, IMHO. Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 With regard to H0, when you say it (aytch nought) it doesn't sound right does it? I think just about everybody calls it HO although if my Dad had seen H0 written he would probably have pronouced it "aytch ought". Going back to when these gauges were named, or at least to my childhood, ie the time pre-computors, there was no real distinction between the symbols for 'zero' as in O,1,2,3 etc or 'Oh' as in M,N,O,P, etc. and when saying numbers as in the telephone etc it was usual to say the number zero as 'Oh' and double-oh. In my recollection 'nought' would only be used if there was special need to avoid confusion. However, since you did answer my frivolouse question about HO opps H0-SF and Peco code 100, I think I have mentioned before that I would be interested in having ago but I would be matching the code 100, does anybody produce chairs for code 100 flat bottom rail? Of course Peco do the 'IL-112 Pandrol type rail fixings' but they're too modern for what I want. Flat bottom rail does not use 'chairs', one of its main benefits was its ability to sit on the sleepers and just be spiked down, but this was only satisfactory for light duty and 'baseplates' were added to spread the load on the sleepers and reduce wear. In UK practice the baseplates were cast to give the 1:20 inclination to the rail. Components available for hand building track in 4mm scale will not fit code 100 rail properly as people going to that amount of trouble normally use scale rail, code 82 for UK practice, this equally goes for the Peco IL112 which will not fit code 100. To build with code 100 you will need to find your own compromise. There are some etched baseplates from the likes of C&L that you may be able to use. Experiments are indicated. Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 23, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted March 23, 2014 With regard to H0, when you say it (aytch nought) it doesn't sound right does it? Hi Ian, It depends what you are used to. The late Tony Miles always referred to "nought,nought" and "nought" gauges for 00 and 0 gauge. I can remember when I started modelling 50 years ago, such usage could be frequently heard around the clubs and model shops. Even today, you can sometimes hear "nought gauge" used in the Gauge 0 Guild. In spoken English "oh" can mean 0 or O -- not many say "zero" or "nought" when giving a phone number -- so "oh-oh" or "aitch-oh" can mean either. It is only in written English that the error niggles the reader. Well this one anyway. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian_H Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Going back to when these gauges were named, or at least to my childhood, ie the time pre-computors, there was no real distinction between the symbols for 'zero' as in O,1,2,3 etc or 'Oh' as in M,N,O,P, etc. and when saying numbers as in the telephone etc it was usual to say the number zero as 'Oh' and double-oh. In my recollection 'nought' would only be used if there was special need to avoid confusion. Flat bottom rail does not use 'chairs', one of its main benefits was its ability to sit on the sleepers and just be spiked down, but this was only satisfactory for light duty and 'baseplates' were added to spread the load on the sleepers and reduce wear. In UK practice the baseplates were cast to give the 1:20 inclination to the rail. Components available for hand building track in 4mm scale will not fit code 100 rail properly as people going to that amount of trouble normally use scale rail, code 82 for UK practice, this equally goes for the Peco IL112 which will not fit code 100. To build with code 100 you will need to find your own compromise. There are some etched baseplates from the likes of C&L that you may be able to use. Experiments are indicated. Keith Hi Keith, I guess I'll be using solder and copperclad PCB Thanks Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Hi Martin Thanks for that, I was just messing about trying to lighten the topic a little. With regard to H0, when you say it (aytch nought) it doesn't sound right does it? I think just about everybody calls it HO although if my Dad had seen H0 written he would probably have pronouced it "aytch ought". However, since you did answer my frivolouse question about HO opps H0-SF and Peco code 100, I think I have mentioned before that I would be interested in having ago but I would be matching the code 100, does anybody produce chairs for code 100 flat bottom rail? Of course Peco do the 'IL-112 Pandrol type rail fixings' but they're too modern for what I want. Thanks Ian Ian Its already been covered but there are really no chairs or fixings for code 100 rail, though it is quite likely that you could use the C&L or Exactoscale chairs cosmetically with code 100 as I guess you could do with Peco's Pandrol clips. The Peco Pandrol and the C&L base plates though for flatbottom rail are designed for code 82. One thought if any of these chairs can be used cosmetically, is you could use copperclad sleepers every third or fourth sleeper and use either plastic or ply sleepers on the others. This will reduce the amount of soldering Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 As per my original post here, and reading many of the subsequent, posts above, there is clearly major confusion and a naming issue as to what matters in the differences between "00" as in "00/HO 16.5 mm gauge" and 00-SF, and what does not.To those attempting to use finer wheels, the gauge situation is NOT a cosmetic issue. Whether the flangeway size is noticeable to humans, and/or the gauge difference is not, has nothing to do with the running problems that wheels face. The wheels are greatly affected by narrowing the gauge below the 00/HO standard. The "finer scale" (using the popular term), 00/HO wheels are, the more likely they are to be knocked or squeezed off the track by a too narrow gauge. Either by rail joint misalignments, struck by the narrower finer flange edges, or by the sheer tightness of the gauge, due to the finer 00/HO wheels necessary wider B-B. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.