00-SF and 00-BF? Can you mix?

[Andy Y]

Andy Reichert should no longer be able to access the topic, that should stop the arguing.

[martin_wynne]

So how does that make the  NMRA measurements for manufacturers (or anyone else) "fundamentally flawed" ???

 

Because the dimensioning is duplicated and not uniquely defined.

 

For example, when moving the wheels apart on the axle, which NMRA maximum applies? On the back-to-back dimension or on the back-to-flange dimension ("wheel check gauge")? Which over-rides the other? Or are you required to measure twice, once based on one set of max/min, and then again on another set of max/min? That makes no sense at all when only one dimension is changing (the wheel spacing).

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

Andy Reichert should no longer be able to access the topic, that should stop the arguing.

 

That seems excessively draconian. Which actual rule has he broken? He hasn't made any personal attacks or inappropriate comments. He is a respected and knowledgeable manufacturer of trackwork components and a good friend. The fact that we have some lively disagreements doesn't change that.

 

Lord preserve us from moderators.

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

Martin

 

I do have the greatest respect for you and Andy's knowledge on the subject plus his modelling ability. Whilst you may enjoy the sparing with Andy sometimes it certainly adds nothing to the thread, perhaps even confusing and or putting some off either 00-sf of track building. Most threads do go off topic and sometimes one disagrees with either others views or methods. Yes it is a free world to say within limits what one wants, but also we also have a duty to respect others can have their own views and or methods.

 

I think Andy has taken up the suggestion and opened his own thread, where he and others can enjoy a good technical discussion about their thoughts and ideas. Yes it is draconian, but let's see if it helps the thread  

[martin_wynne]

Hi John,

 

If the moderator wanted Andy R to continue the discussion elsewhere he should have said so, and provided a link.

 

As far as I can see Andy R has started three related topics in recent months, but none of them directly about the merits and demerits of 00-SF:

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/100963-commercial-rtr-and-optional-wheels-sizes-for-165-mm-gauge/

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/100943-some-model-wheel-dimensions-that-affect-standards-and-running/

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/100363-00-p-a-track-and-wheel-compromise-standard-with-a-lot-of-potential-and-practical-support/

 

I agree that tedious argument can confuse beginners and I have made that point to Andy R several times.

 

This web site is Andy Y's property and we are all here subject to his permission and decision, for which he is not required to give his reasons. Nevertheless the purpose of a forum is shared information and discussion, and it is not acceptable for one contributor to be excluded mid-discussion without any statement of the reason or which rule has been broken.

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

Martin

 

A very fair point, I am afraid that whilst I guess its my loss, I decided not to read them 

[84f]

Just to add my two penneth.I too have been following OO sf threads for some while with interest. I have been dabbling with EM and having spent around 6 months failing to get a couple of kit em chassis working smoothly, I have concluded that life is too short for this bungler to get a decent em layout up and running. I am drawn to OO sf and have today ordered a set of guages from college so I can build a test track to prove the suitability of this guage.

Can I be radical and suggest that the Andy R posts are simply ignored as i can't see any value in the endless repetitive debates?

Regards

Robin

[martin_wynne]

On 20/08/2015 at 08:56, David_H said:

I'm quite ok with modifying back to back wheel settings and building special trackwork, and intend to build a layout with that in mind. But if 00-SF is designed with that in mind then people should say so, and not claim that you can "easily mix" different standards "out of the box" (again, not your words, but a synopsis of what I often read).

 

But if somebody could clear up some of the loose talk on this and other threads that doesn't always quite add up, and perhaps point me to a written down standard for 00-SF (if such exists - it's not a perfect world I know), that would be most helpful. Thank you.

 

Hi David,

 

I said I would write a bit more, so here we go. This is likely to become a long rambling post, so apologies for that. To answer your points it is necessary to go back to the origins of 00-SF in the UK in the early 1970s.

 

Please be aware that I'm unable to say anything about the history of the NMRA standards, or Terry Flynn's finer standards for AMRA. Such things were unknown to me at the time, and outside my involvement still.

 

What follows is my best recollection of events more than 40 years ago. After all this time I confess my memory is less than perfect, and others may recall things differently. I know that Ravenser of this parish is one who does so.

 

In 1972 I joined the Railway Modellers Club of Worcester. They had an ideal model railway club premises -- a redundant village hall on the side of the cutting overlooking Norton Junction signal box, just outside Worcester. In there they were building a model of Bewdley on the Severn Valley Railway as it was in BR days before preservation. The survey work had been done while Bewdley was still in BR hands after services closed in January 1970.

 

By the standards of the time it was a very fine model, and was being built in EM Gauge. As other members joined this caused the Worcester area to become something of a hot-spot for EM modelling in the 1970s and 80s.

 

In the UK the vast majority of modelling in that size range is done at a scale of 4mm/ft (1:76.2), and not the 1:87 (H0) scale popular in the rest of the world. This applies to 00, EM and P4 gauges -- each having a different track gauge, but all using the same 4mm/ft modelling scale.

 

In July 1951 the British Railway Modelling Standards Bureau (BRMSB) had published its post-war standards for 00 and EM gauge, and when it was founded in 1955 the EM Gauge Society (EMGS) initially adopted the BRMSB standard for EM. This specified a track gauge of 18.0mm, flangeways 1.0mm, wheels having flanges 0.5mm thick at 16.5mm back-to-back.

 

Unfortunately locomotive driving wheels with such thin flanges were not generally available from the model trade at that time. So most EM modellers used BRMSB 00 wheels having flanges 0.7mm thick (e.g. Romford wheels, now Markits, and Hamblings wheels). At 16.5mm back-to-back this caused problems with the back-to-flange dimension through crossings, and with tight running on sharp curves.

 

To overcome that the EMGS made the decision in the 1960s to increase the track gauge and check gauge by 0.2mm to 18.2mm and 17.2mm respectively, and those remain the current EM standard. Here is the 1970 revision of the EMGS standards booklet:

 

 

     

While involved in the Bewdley layout I met the late Roy Miller of the EMGS, who told me about the idea of "EM minus 2", i.e. reducing the EM track gauge to 16.2mm, still with 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 (instead of the 1.25mm flangeways for 00), by demonstrating such running with their existing 00 stock. The back-to-back for 00 was 14.5mm, i.e. 2.0mm less than EM, hence the idea of reducing the track gauge by exactly the same amount from 18.2mm to 16.2mm.

 

This idea would not have worked with the original BRMSB EM wheels on 18.0mm gauge, but with EM now using BRMSB 00 wheels it made obvious sense. If such wheels worked fine on 18.2mm gauge at 16.5mm back-to-back, they should work equally well on 16.2mm gauge at 14.5mm back-to-back. With a corresponding reduction in the check gauge from 17.2mm to 15.2mm. 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.

 

In 1974 I began trading as 85A Models, manufacturing turnout kits and components, and pointwork made to order. Roy asked me to make up a crossover in "EM minus 2" which he could have on the EM stand at exhibitions. I turned some gauges and made one up and I was immediately impressed with its performance. So much so that I adopted 16.2mm gauge with 1.0mm flangeways for my standard 00 gauge products. Customers liked them and always came back for more. The narrower flangeways made it look much finer than any other 00 pointwork.

 

At that time RTR models were children's toys. Most serious 00 modellers were using the BRMSB "scale 00" wheels -- mostly on cast white-metal kits with Romford wheels and axles. RTR wheels were much too coarse for that, 00 modellers would re-wheel RTR models with Romford or Hamblings wheels if they used any RTR models at all.

 

When I was developing Templot in the 1990s I remembered "EM minus 2", so I included it in the list of pre-set gauges, and gave it the shorter more convenient name 00-SF ("00 special fine"). A few years later Dave Smith at the Carshalton club discovered it in Templot and asked me about it. He was having trouble getting good running on his club's new layout, and didn't want his members to be required to modify their back-to-backs for the DOGA-Fine 00 standard. The upshot was that Dave tried 00-SF and discovered that all the modern RTR stock ran on it very well unmodified -- rather to his surprise, my surprise and indeed everyone's surprise. It appeared that in the intervening 25 years RTR wheels had improved somewhat.

 

So you can see that 00-SF was not actually designed to accept a mix of wheels, that was just a happy accident. It was originally designed for one specific wheel -- the BRMSB "scale 00" wheel of 1951, as typically represented by Romford and Hamblings driving wheels, and other wheels used by EM modellers such as the EMGS 1979 profile (similar to NMRA code 88 wheels, but with thinner flange thickness 0.6mm). These are now commonly called "kit wheels" in contradistinction to "RTR wheels" which generally now in the UK match the NMRA code 110 profile.

 

As a result of all that, and the growing interest in 00-SF which developed, Brian Tulley began supplying precision gauge tools for 00-SF on a non-profit basis. When demand outstripped his resources he handed production over to C&L, and if you want to build 00-SF these are still the gauges to use:

 

 http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=346_375_376

 

Other 00 "special fine" gauges are now available, for example from DCC Concepts, but the dimensioning is not clear, nor for which rail section they are intended.

 

Because the ability of RTR models to run on 00-SF came about as a happy accident, I have always tried to make clear that RTR wheels will need to be checked for compliance (back-to-back in the range 14.3mm to 14.4mm). More so than is necessary if running them on BRMSB 00 track (now called 00-BF in Templot and also known as DOGA-Intermediate). But in most cases modern RTR models are found to comply, run straight from the box on 00-SF, and you are unlucky if you find you have a rogue wheelset which doesn't. Older RTR models do not comply, and are not suitable for 00-SF.

 

It's important always to bear in mind that 00-SF was derived from EM, it's not a modification from RTR 00. So it shares the same EM conditions such as minimum radius, which for running lines should not be less than about 750mm or 30". 00-SF is not suitable for layouts with sharp train-set curves.

 

More details of the 00-SF standards and settings are on the 00-SF web site at:

 

 https://85a.uk/00-sf/

 

That's enough rambling, I will stop there. http://85a.co.uk/forum/images/emoticons/smile.gif

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Arthur]

 

Thanks Martin, that's very interesting, and useful for putting 00-SF into some kind of context.

[hayfield]

Martin

 

Thanks for the history lesson and answers my questions on the EM gauge change, also how 00-sf came into being

 

I can add that to date all who use 00-sf have been extremely happy with the performance and looks

[Arthur]

One of the things which appeals to me about 00-SF is it's truly British 'muddling on' approach, an element of plucky Brits beavering away in sheds to overcome a common foe, the evil tyrant which is '00'.

 

In that spirit I give you;

 

[davefrk]

Just read this and realised I may have been working in 00sf for years. I've been involved with a few railways over the past 30 years with me doing the track and handbuilt pointwork but, me being an EM devotee the 00 points were built to EM spec and the wheelsets changed to Romford or such, would I be correct in saying that this is 00sf?

Layouts such as the Scottish borders layout 'Hewisbridge' and the NE layout 'Montague Field' have been mistaken for EM layouts on numerous occasions and Hewisbridge was even invited to EXPO EM by the exhibition manager who was convinced it was EM. So I have to agree the track does look so much better than straight 00.

These days I'm a helper on the 'Alloa' layout and guess what, it's got 00 track built to EM spec. We'll have to change the posters on the front of the layout to Alloa 00SF.

Me? I'm happy with the EM Wharfeside' layout I've been working on for 30 years even with having to change 'all' the wheels...

 

All the best guys.

 

Dave Franks

 

Edit to add. I should also mention that these layouts are and were often complimented on the standard of running.

[martin_wynne]

Just read this and realised I may have been working in 00sf for years. I've been involved with a few railways over the past 30 years with me doing the track and handbuilt pointwork but, me being an EM devotee the 00 points were built to EM spec and the wheelsets changed to Romford or such, would I be correct in saying that this is 00sf?

 

Hi Dave,

 

Which track gauges did you use? Do modern RTR models run unmodified?

 

If you built the track to 16.2mm gauge, yes it's 00-SF. Since track gauges for 16.2mm have been available only for a few years, you would have made your own track gauges.

 

If you built the track to 16.5mm gauge, it is not 00-SF, it is the DOGA-Fine standard. 00 track gauges for 16.5mm have been available for many, many years, and specifically for DOGA-Fine (with 1.0mm flangeways) from C&L for several years.

 

Note that unmodified RTR models will not run on DOGA-Fine.

 

The DOGA-Fine standard details are here: http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/finescaletrack.htm

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

One of the things which appeals to me about 00-SF is it's truly British 'muddling on' approach, an element of plucky Brits beavering away in sheds to overcome a common foe, the evil tyrant which is '00'.  [emphasis added]

 

In that spirit I give you;

 

image.jpg

 

That is deliberately offensive to those of us working in OO . I really didn't expect an explicit statement that "OO-SF" is a deliberate "anti-OO" project.

 

Just what do you think would happen if a OO modeller posted that he was working "to overcome a common foe, the evil tyrant that is P4"???? I think there would be a pretty strong and hostile reaction from P4 modellers................ 

[hayfield]

That is deliberately offensive to those of us working in OO . I really didn't expect an explicit statement that "OO-SF" is a deliberate "anti-OO" project.

 

Just what do you think would happen if a OO modeller posted that he was working "to overcome a common foe, the evil tyrant that is P4"???? I think there would be a pretty strong and hostile reaction from P4 modellers................ 

 

Get the joke and smile ?

 

I don't think any hostility was meant, just a bit of fun aimed at a recent occurrence on the thread, I believe it was meant in jest to lighten up things a bit

[davefrk]

Hi Dave,

 

Which track gauges did you use? Do modern RTR models run unmodified?

 

If you built the track to 16.2mm gauge, yes it's 00-SF. Since track gauges for 16.2mm have been available only for a few years, you would have made your own track gauges.

 

If you built the track to 16.5mm gauge, it is not 00-SF, it is the DOGA-Fine standard. 00 track gauges for 16.5mm have been available for many, many years, and specifically for DOGA-Fine (with 1.0mm flangeways) from C&L for several years.

 

Note that unmodified RTR models will not run on DOGA-Fine.

 

The DOGA-Fine standard details are here: http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/finescaletrack.htm

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

 Thanks Martin, that's put me straight, Track gauge is/was 16.5mm so DOGA-Fine it is.

Sorry for wrong end of stick,  

 

Andy R will be laughing up his sleeve....

 

All the best,

Dave Franks.

[Ravenser]

Hi David,

 

I said I would write a bit more, so here we go. This is likely to become a long rambling post, so apologies for that. To answer your points it is necessary to go back to the origins of 00-SF in the UK in the early 1970s.

 

Please be aware that I'm unable to say anything about the history of the NMRA standards, or Terry Flynn's finer standards for AMRA. Such things were unknown to me at the time, and outside my involvement still.

 

What follows is my best recollection of events more than 40 years ago. After all this time I confess my memory is less than perfect, and others may recall things differently. I know that Ravenser of this parish is one who does so.

 

In 1972 I joined the Railway Modellers Club of Worcester. They had an ideal model railway club premises -- a redundant village hall on the side of the cutting overlooking Norton Junction signal box, just outside Worcester. In there they were building a model of Bewdley on the Severn Valley Railway as it was in BR days before preservation. The survey work had been done while Bewdley was still in BR hands after services closed in January 1970.

 

By the standards of the time it was a very fine model, and was being built in EM Gauge. As other members joined this caused the Worcester area to become something of a hot-spot for EM modelling in the 1970s and 80s.

 

In the UK the vast majority of modelling in that size range is done at a scale of 4mm/ft (1:76.2), and not the 1:87 (H0) scale popular in the rest of the world. This applies to 00, EM and P4 gauges -- each having a different track gauge, but all using the same 4mm/ft modelling scale.

 

In July 1951 the British Railway Modelling Standards Bureau (BRMSB) had published its post-war standards for 00 and EM gauge, and when it was founded in 1955 the EM Gauge Society (EMGS) initially adopted the BRMSB standard for EM. This specified a track gauge of 18.0mm, flangeways 1.0mm, wheels having flanges 0.5mm thick at 16.5mm back-to-back.

 

Unfortunately locomotive driving wheels with such thin flanges were not generally available from the model trade at that time. So most EM modellers used BRMSB 00 wheels having flanges 0.7mm thick (e.g. Romford wheels, now Markits, and Hamblings wheels). At 16.5mm back-to-back this caused problems with the back-to-flange dimension through crossings, and with tight running on sharp curves.

 

To overcome that the EMGS made the decision in the 1960s to increase the track gauge and check gauge by 0.2mm to 18.2mm and 17.2mm respectively, and those remain the current EM standard. Here is the 1970 revision of the EMGS standards booklet:

 

emgs_standards_booklet_1970_1.jpg

 

emgs_standards_booklet_1970_2.jpg

     

While involved in the Bewdley layout I met the late Roy Miller of the EMGS, who told me about the idea of "EM minus 2", i.e. reducing the EM track gauge to 16.2mm, still with 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 (instead of the 1.25mm flangeways for 00), by demonstrating such running with their existing 00 stock. The back-to-back for 00 was 14.5mm, i.e. 2.0mm less than EM, hence the idea of reducing the track gauge by exactly the same amount from 18.2mm to 16.2mm.

 

This idea would not have worked with the original BRMSB EM wheels on 18.0mm gauge, but with EM now using BRMSB 00 wheels it made obvious sense. If such wheels worked fine on 18.2mm gauge at 16.5mm back-to-back, they should work equally well on 16.2mm gauge at 14.5mm back-to-back. With a corresponding reduction in the check gauge from 17.2mm to 15.2mm. 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.

 

In 1974 I began trading as 85A Models, manufacturing turnout kits and components, and pointwork made to order. Roy asked me to make up a crossover in "EM minus 2" which he could have on the EM stand at exhibitions. I turned some gauges and made one up and I was immediately impressed with its performance. So much so that I adopted 16.2mm gauge with 1.0mm flangeways for my standard 00 gauge products. Customers liked them and always came back for more. The narrower flangeways made it look much finer than any other 00 pointwork.

 

At that time RTR models were children's toys. Most serious 00 modellers were using the BRMSB "scale 00" wheels -- mostly on cast white-metal kits with Romford wheels and axles. RTR wheels were much too coarse for that, 00 modellers would re-wheel RTR models with Romford or Hamblings wheels if they used any RTR models at all.

 

When I was developing Templot in the 1990s I remembered "EM minus 2", so I included it in the list of pre-set gauges, and gave it the shorter more convenient name 00-SF ("00 special fine"). A few years later Dave Smith at the Carshalton club discovered it in Templot and asked me about it. He was having trouble getting good running on his club's new layout, and didn't want his members to be required to modify their back-to-backs for the DOGA-Fine 00 standard. The upshot was that Dave tried 00-SF and discovered that all the modern RTR stock ran on it very well unmodified -- rather to his surprise, my surprise and indeed everyone's surprise. It appeared that in the intervening 25 years RTR wheels had improved somewhat.

 

So you can see that 00-SF was not actually designed to accept a mix of wheels, that was just a happy accident. It was originally designed for one specific wheel -- the BRMSB "scale 00" wheel of 1951, as typically represented by Romford and Hamblings driving wheels, and other wheels used by EM modellers such as the EMGS 1979 profile (similar to NMRA code 88 wheels, but with thinner flange thickness 0.6mm). These are now commonly called "kit wheels" in contradistinction to "RTR wheels" which generally now in the UK match the NMRA code 110 profile.

 

As a result of all that, and the growing interest in 00-SF which developed, Brian Tulley began supplying precision gauge tools for 00-SF on a non-profit basis. When demand outstripped his resources he handed production over to C&L, and if you want to build 00-SF these are still the gauges to use:

 

 http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=346_375_376

 

Other 00 "special fine" gauges are now available, for example from DCC Concepts, but the dimensioning is not clear, nor for which rail section they are intended.

 

Because the ability of RTR models to run on 00-SF came about as a happy accident, I have always tried to make clear that RTR wheels will need to be checked for compliance (back-to-back in the range 14.3mm to 14.4mm). More so than is necessary if running them on BRMSB 00 track (now called 00-BF in Templot and also known as DOGA-Intermediate). But in most cases modern RTR models are found to comply, run straight from the box on 00-SF, and you are unlucky if you find you have a rogue wheelset which doesn't. Older RTR models do not comply, and are not suitable for 00-SF.

 

It's important always to bear in mind that 00-SF was derived from EM, it's not a modification from RTR 00. So it shares the same EM conditions such as minimum radius, which for running lines should not be less than about 750mm or 30". 00-SF is not suitable for layouts with sharp train-set curves.

 

More details of the 00-SF standards and settings are on the 00-SF web site at:

 

 http://00-sf.org.uk

 

I will add a proper table of dimensions there in due course. I have posted that on RMweb before now, but I am having trouble finding it right now.

 

That's enough rambling, I will stop there.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

As my name has been invoked, it's worth pointing out that I don't claim to be an authority on Martin's personal modelling history over 40 odd years.  

 

For the record, the BRMSB standards for 4mm and 3.5mm scales were originally published in March 1942 and those for EM and OO do not seem to have changed when republished in 1951.

 

The establishment of these standards was a rather convoluted episode - following an appeal for coherent consistent engineering standards for 4mm scale /16.5mm gauge products from the scale model trade , a small committee was set up to draw something up. The committee then indicated that it was going to produce standards for 3.5mm/HO which was virtually defunct in Britain, and for a new gauge of 18.0mm/4mm scale which nobody was then using (later called EM), and was refusing to draw up standards for OO, which virtually everyone used, on the grounds that OO was wrong - even though that was the very task for which the committee had been set up!  There seems to have been something of a backlash from the hobby at that point, and the BRMSB cobbled together some OO standards by bodging back from their new EM standard.

 

The background to this curious approach is that a "compromise gauge" of 18.0mm was the pet solution of the then proprietor of the Model Railway Constructor, F.W.Chubb and it seems that he and his editor, plus a well-known HO modeller of the time (Michael Langridge) , were the ones actually responsible for drawing up the standards for "the smaller scales". Gauge O was handled by the Model Railway 'News, and W.S.Norris' finescale standards were adopted.

 

For full gory details see http://www.doubleogauge.com/history/History2.htm

 

The key point is that this resulted in the BRMSB OO wheel being a bit too fine for BRMSB OO track - presumably because OO was very much an after thought, and the hearts of the BRMSB were elsewhere. They openly hoped that the new 18.0mm standard would displace 16.5mm gauge which would only be a residual, legacy standard.

 

In other words an attempt to establish proper standards for commercial OO products was hijacked and disrupted by a small number of people with a very different agenda, who were committed to replacing OO with their own finescale gauge and saw drawing up OO standards as a way to push the hobby into doing this.

 

This effort failed. They established EM gauge, as an alternative for the few, but fragmented 4mm scale.. OO has suffered from repeated attempts to pull the same stunt (the way every internet discussion of better OO track gets disrupted by "no, make RTR P4" followed by the triumphant cry "They can't agree!  They can't agree!" being a case in point). I have been astonished by the repeated determined attempts to sabotage any attempt to get better OO track for OO modellers in general - Martin will recall the strange episode when a track poll on here was deliberately sabotaged by external sources in order to suppress it.  

 

(It's why I believe OO standards should be set by a broad group of people actually working in OO - since they are the people who will benefit, and they will therefore not sabotage the whole project in  pursuit of an agenda to undermine OO)

 

The key point is that whatever the inconsistency between BRMSB OO wheel standards and BRMSB OO track standards, the NMRA RP25/110 wheel set - which is now the nominal standard for the RTR industry - is a perfect fit for the BRMSB OO track standard. (Logically - this track standard falls within the tolerance envelope of the DOGA OO Intermediate track standard)

 

This fact needs to be shouted from the housetops

 

For obvious reasons there are many hundreds  if not thousands of OO layouts out there with "BRMSB track" since it's been the norm for handbuilt OO track for generations. (I reckon the Intermediate : Finescale  ratio among OO layouts with handbuilt track is 4:1 or 5:1) They have a fully coherent consistent wheel/track standard , that works perfectly in engineering terms. Hence this combination works as reliably as any other coherent standard, and is better able to handle some of the "almost but not quite" wheelsets from the likes of older Dapol, Heljan and the old Airfix/Mainline.

 

 

To be blunt I feel OO-SF is a solution desperately seeking a problem.

 

 Hewisbridge was even invited to EXPO EM by the exhibition manager who was convinced it was EM. So I have to agree the track does look so much better than straight 00.

 

 

The fundamental difference is the 4mm sleepering. Many people working in OO Intermediate have reported exactly the same comment. People simply assume that if it's not Peco it must be EM .... As a OO modeller working in Intermediate I get very frustrated with the endless automatic equation of Streamline Code 100 with OO, as exemplified by one finescale society which tours southern shows with a display board showing a piece of ratty Streamline code 100 nailed to a board and labelled OO next to a length of flexitrack for their own gauge with the slogan "Join us and make your modelling better!"

 

 

These are now commonly called "kit wheels" in contradistinction to "RTR wheels" which generally now in the UK match the NMRA code 110 profile.

 

 

This is Martin's own pet terminology - there is a sharp difference between Romfords (which are quite close to RP25/110) and Gibsons/Ultrascale wheels (EM profile) . OO modellers normally distinguish quite clearly between Romfords and Gibsons.

 

And the ready availability of packs of true running metal wheels to RP25/110 from Hornby and Bachmann at good prices means that these are a common option for fitting to wagon and coach kits where wheels are not supplied, or for re-wheeling stock

[Ravenser]

There now seem to be 3 sets of standards for "OO-SF" out there

 

- Terry Flynn's standard for the AMRA - which is properly speaking HO-SF , since it is meant for modelling the NSWGR (and presumably also Aussie trams) in 3.5mm scale.

- Martin Wynne's OO-SF, which resides in the coding of Templot

- Whatever DCC Concepts are doing. (which is undocumented)

 

Having seen what C+L have in the past (under previous owners) done with OO back to backs and gauges (ie changing them without telling anyone for unknown reasons) I'd be particularly worried about the third. Unpublished proprietary standards are trouble waiting to happen

 

Martin seems to have an aversion to published standards and datasheets , but they are essential for people to know where they stand, and who's compliant,  and he would probably save himself a lot of trouble if he published one prominently , so he could refer inquiries to it

[martin_wynne]

Martin will recall the strange episode when a track poll on here was deliberately sabotaged by external sources in order to suppress it.

 

??? No I don't recall that. We are talking about a hobby pastime building train sets?

 

May I add again that this topic is entirely about handbuilt track. 00-SF is entirely about handbuilt track. All this stuff about RTR manufacturing history and RTR track, improved or otherwise, really isn't the least bit relevant.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

On 22/08/2015 at 13:05, Ravenser said:

There now seem to be 3 sets of standards for "OO-SF" out there

 

- Terry Flynn's standard for the AMRA - which is properly speaking HO-SF , since it is meant for modelling the NSWGR (and presumably also Aussie trams) in 3.5mm scale.

- Martin Wynne's OO-SF, which resides in the coding of Templot

- Whatever DCC Concepts are doing. (which is undocumented)

 

Having seen what C+L have in the past (under previous owners) done with OO back to backs and gauges (ie changing them without telling anyone for unknown reasons) I'd be particularly worried about the third. Unpublished proprietary standards are trouble waiting to happen

 

Martin seems to have an aversion to published standards and datasheets , but they are essential for people to know where they stand, and who's compliant,  and he would probably save himself a lot of trouble if he published one prominently , so he could refer inquiries to it

 

00-SF is not "Martin Wynne's". I have explained its origins in my recent post.

 

I have no control or input into the AMRA standards from Terry Flynn. Likewise I have no connection with DCC Concepts or what they choose to manufacture. Anyone is free to publish or manufacture whatever they wish where there is no safety issue. It is for the user to decide which to follow or buy. I'm led to believe that some folks even buy Marmite. 

 

I have no aversion to published standards. All the required information for 00-SF is on the 00-SF web page at:

 

 https://85a.uk/00-sf/

 

Martin.

[Budgie]

I'm led to believe that some folks even buy Marmite.

In that case perhaps we should equate Terry Flynn's standards with Vegemite.

[alastairq]

Personally, I see no harm in combining both 16.2 mm gauge, and 16.5mm gauge.

 

In respect of, having plain tack [for speed of laying, etc] at 16.5, but at turnouts and crossings, easing the gauge to 16.2....this for the 'finer' appearance at crossings, etc.

 

Cannot see any problems with that...given that appearance of track is really what started all this?

 

And at least with OO-SF, there isn't the expense of replacing [and subsequent gauging] of every wheelset?

[Ravenser]

??? No I don't recall that. We are talking about a hobby pastime building train sets?

 

May I add again that this topic is entirely about handbuilt track. 00-SF is entirely about handbuilt track. All this stuff about RTR manufacturing history and RTR track, improved or otherwise, really isn't the least bit relevant.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Possibly the word "Plowmen" may jog your memory? I remember your pointed (and entirely pertinent) comment at the time that you couldn't understand why debate and initiative on OO track was being driven from Australia.

 

My interest is in benefiting OO modellers in general - all of them, and not just a small sliver of them. The present commercial track products for OO are unsatisfactory, both visually and in terms of fitting modern RTR wheels properly. Building handbuilt track is simply a fix to address that problem - unfortunately it's a fix that isn't practical for a majority of those working in OO (It is, however, a fix that's currently available: more people could do it than actually do build points, and I'd support and encourage people doing it) 

 

There are several potential ways to skin this particular cat - either by someone producing a full blown ready made OO point, or through some kind of simple to assemble product (eg 3D printed bases with slot in rails) which would be much simpler than full-on traditional handbuilt points and would therefore be an option for a much larger number, or by buying Marcway points, or whatever. But I'm interested in improving the track situation for any and all OO modellers - I have no hangup or restriction as to what route must be taken. Any viable route would suit me. But I'm not going to say "I'm only interested in about 5-10% of OO modellers who fit my preferred criteria. I'm not interested in the other 90% - they're irrelevant and we shouldn't talk about them."

 

It's perfectly possible to build pointwork that fits modern RTR perfectly, gives highly reliable running , and provides good working tolerances to a  proven well-recognised track standard using 16.5mm gauge. That is OO Intermediate / BRMSB OO track . There are dozens of layouts to this standard at shows across Britain every weekend. They've demonstrated reliable operation for decades. You don't get drop in running RP25/110 wheels over such pointwork

 

OO-SF , with its oddities and restrictions, is simply unnecessary - but is being promoted as the only practical option to do better than Peco

 

My only direct reference to commercial track was to point out that difference people notice is between Peco Streamline and handbuilt 4mm scale track built to any standard. The casual assumption is that if it isn't Peco it must be EM - that's what drives the comments Dave Franks reported. The claimed visual advantages of  OO-SF are therefore - literally - vanishingly small. If folk can't see the difference between handbuilt OO and EM track, they certainly won't notice the very slight claimed visual advantage of OO-SF over OO Intermediate 

[Ravenser]

Personally, I see no harm in combining both 16.2 mm gauge, and 16.5mm gauge.

 

In respect of, having plain tack [for speed of laying, etc] at 16.5, but at turnouts and crossings, easing the gauge to 16.2....this for the 'finer' appearance at crossings, etc.

 

Cannot see any problems with that...given that appearance of track is really what started all this?

 

And at least with OO-SF, there isn't the expense of replacing [and subsequent gauging] of every wheelset?

 

 

But there's no expense of replacing wheelsets with OO Intermediate - and that gives better working clearances with equal reliability of running and no variation of the gauge. The alleged visual advantage of OO-SF against handbuilt points to OO Intermediate is minimal - almost nobody will ever notice it. 

[martin_wynne]

Hi Ravenser,

 

Here is the table of 00-SF dimensions which you requested. It is also now on the 00-SF web page at: http://00-sf.org.uk/

 

It doesn't contain anything which hasn't been posted many times.

 

 

 

 

regards,

 

Martin.