martin_wynne

Agreed. They will jam unless opened out. Ravenser, we are going nowhere, just round and round in circles in topic after topic. How about a truce? I will agree, in capital letters if you wish -- RTR MODELS WITH BACK-TO-BACK LESS THAN 14.3mm WILL NOT RUN ON 00-SF. BUT THEY WILL RUN ON DOGA INTERMEDIATE. (In fact I have never suggested otherwise. I have no control over what other RMweb members choose to say, or said 8 years ago.) If you will agree that KIT WHEELS NARROWER THAN 2.75mm ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR DOGA INTERMEDIATE. BUT THEY ARE SUITABLE FOR 00-SF. An important point of course is that wheels which are too close can be opened out to make them compatible with 00-SF. There is nothing that can be done to a kit wheel to make it compatible with DOGA Intermediate. I have always been careful to refer to "most", "modern", RTR models in talking about 00-SF. My understanding was that most such RTR models do now have wheels wider than 14.3mm back-to-back. If you are now saying that is not the case I'm happy to accept that -- I can't possibly measure the entire UK RTR wheel production. Perhaps we need a survey on the subject, but preferably related to production volume. Saying that a particular model has a narrower back-to-back is hardly significant if the total production run was 100 units 10 years ago. regards, Martin.

Hi Gordon, Thanks for that. Reading it again one point of detail has struck me which was not made at the time, and hasn't been made much of since. It was David Honner who drew attention to it: The maximum BEF for 00-SF, and 00-BF, and DOGA Intermediate is all the same -- 15.2mm (see: http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/commercialwheels.htm ) This means that if RTR wheels need closing up on back-to-back for 00-SF, then they also need closing up for 00-BF and DOGA Intermediate. If as is being reported some RTR wheels are in the range 14.5 - 14.6mm back-to-back, then DOGA Intermediate has no advantage over 00-SF. Both would require the wheels to be adjusted. And both by the same amount, because both have the same maximum BEF of 15.2mm (see the above link). It is only where RTR wheels are closer than 14.3mm back-to-back that 00-BF and DOGA Intermediate have an advantage over 00-SF. A further point to note is the minimum wheel width in the above link. It is 2.75mm. Romford/Markits wheels are 2.54mm wide, most other kit wheels are 2.3mm wide. So none of these wheels are suitable for DOGA Intermediate. They all run fine on 00-SF. I can hardly believe that 8 years later I am still posting dimensions about 00-SF. regards, Martin.

Hi Ravenser, I do not have any "followers" and certainly do not want any. My only contribution ha been to provide the Templot software and I'm pleased that many modellers find it useful. In explaining 00-SF over the years I have simply been explaining what is in Templot. I can't follow that at all. There isn't a user base for any standard until it is defined. When the P4 standards were first proposed in the mid 1960s there was no user base, just a few modellers conducting experiments. When Roy Miller first told me of the "EM minus 2" idea in the early 1970s, no-one was actually using it, not even him. That didn't stop me adopting it for my 00 products after trying it and finding it to my liking. I would be very happy if even now DOGA added 00-SF to its set of standards. There is no reason not to if it claims to represent the full range of 00 modellers. regards, Martin.

Hi Ravenser, That doesn't make sense. A standard is created by arithmetic, it doesn't require anyone to be using it. They can't if it doesn't yet exist. Standards are first proposed, and then adopted. I have posted the history of 00-SF more than once, and it goes back a long way before Templot. I have now put it on the 00-SF Wiki, and you are very welcome to add to it if you wish, or correct any mistakes. It's at: http://00-sf.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=History_of_00-SF Templot's first public release was in August 1999, including a listing for 00-SF, which is 16 years ago, not 5 or 6. As a former manufacturer of track and at that time still trading as 85A Models, DOGA could easily have contacted me if it was researching track standards. Templot has also always included a listing for 00-BF, and in discussing 00-SF I have never ignored 00-BF / DOGA Intermediate or its pros and cons. But the point about 00-BF and DOGA Intermediate which you refuse to address is that it is not suitable for narrow kit wheels such as EMGS, Alan Gibson, Ultrascale, etc., and only marginally suitable for Romford/Markits and then only if unprototypical sharp-nose vees are used. Various claims are made that drop-in on crossings doesn't matter, or isn't significant, but as everyone who has tried it knows full well, it does happen and it is objectionable to most of them. Especially on the longer crossing angles in curved crossovers and elsewhere which builders of handbuilt track like to use. So just to make it clear, here is a statement again which I have made many times: If you use only RTR wheels, DOGA Intermediate is absolutely fine and there is no need to use 00-SF. Other than for the improved appearance of the narrower flangeways. I repeat. If you use only RTR wheels. If you use narrower wheels it is a matter of arithmetic, not opinion. They will not be fully supported across the crossings and will bump. They don't do that on 00-SF. regards, Martin.

Hi Ravenser, If DOGA had properly researched the 00 standards and embraced "EM minus 2" as one of its standards, under whatever name it wanted, the matter would have been completely defused and the present heat would never have arisen. 00 modellers could now be choosing a suitable standard solely on its merits, instead of across drawn battle lines. Even now I would be happy to change the 00-SF designation in Templot to DOGA-SF or whatever you want. Instead of that of course, whenever 00-SF was first discussed on RMweb it was met with a barrage of abuse. Largely from DOGA. regards, Martin.

Linked from: http://www.robertdarlaston.co.uk/railways.htm

I have now added my notes about the history of 00-SF to the 00-SF Wiki, see: http://00-sf.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=History_of_00-SF If anyone has more information or memories please edit or add to that page accordingly. The 00-SF Wiki is here: http://00-sf.org.uk/wiki/ Details of how to contribute to it are here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/94567-00-sf-and-00-bf-can-you-mix/page-16&do=findComment&comment=2006814 regards, Martin.

Hi Arthur, Those comments have really taken me aback. In discussing 00-SF it has never occurred to me that anyone would be unaware of other 00 modelling using handbuilt track. That may explain some of the heat in the argument, which has always baffled me. There must have been many hundreds of such layouts appearing in magazines and at exhibitions over the last 60 years or so. They are nearly all built to the BRMSB 00 track standard (now called 00-BF in Templot and DOGA-Intermediate). Roller track gauges to this standard have been available from Romford/Markits for all that time, and kits and components from suppliers such as SMP/Marcway and in more recent years C&L. Here's one such well-known layout which comes to mind: http://mmrs.co.uk/layouts/dewsbury-midland/ regards, Martin.

Which is spot-on for the "Assumed RTR Wheel" (or what 0 gauge modellers call an "industry-standard wheel") implied when suggesting that RTR wheels run on 00-SF unmodified. Martin.

Thanks Andy. One detail that pic shows well is that the rail section used in Peco turnouts does not have any web. Otherwise of course it would not be usable for insert moulding. Or at least, not without a vastly more complex mould tool. Your figures give a check gauge on the main side of 15.01mm and on the turnout side of 14.91mm, in keeping with my previous suggestion that the Peco check gauge is or was 15.0mm. So it seems from Richard's figures that there is indeed a difference in this regard between their code 75 and code 100 products. Given how silly some of the other details are (e.g. the far too short check rails, the bent timber on the exit), the rail fixings are quite reasonable representations of FB baseplates and clips. More evidence that Peco do actually know about track, as seen for example in their bullhead turnouts for 0 gauge. regards, Martin.

Hi Andrew, Andy, The Peco analysis is in some way relevant in answering the question "is 00-SF better?" if you then say "than what?". Usually the comparison is assumed to be with 00-BF or DOGA-Intermediate handbuilt track. But at least some new 00-SF users will be coming straight from Peco+RTR. Which could explain David's puzzlement that so many report excellent results, when on the face of it the RTR wheel dimensions don't quite add up. Andy's dimensions give a check gauge of of 15.13mm and 14.9mm, tending to confirm the notion that Peco's check gauge is, or was, significantly below 15.2mm. Andy, can you double-check that by measuring the check rail gaps? It would be interesting to see the manufacturing drawing, because I very much doubt the difference in crossing flangeways was intended. Which means a much larger production sample is needed. Thanks for the info. regards, Martin.

Thanks Richard. That puts the check gauge somewhere between 15.3mm (16.6 gauge - 1.3) and 15.1mm (16.5 gauge - 1.4). So maybe the design intent for the code 75 is indeed now 15.2mm check gauge. It will be interesting to know the figures for the code 100. regards, Martin.

Thanks for that Richard. Is that the crossing flangeway or the check rail gap? In order to know the check gauge we need the check rail gap and the track gauge. Does the packaging/instructions on the Code 75 product say anything about the track standards? Hopefully someone can provide similar info for the current Code 100 production. regards, Martin.

Hi David, I think one point you may be missing in not being familiar with 00 modelling in the UK, is where many such modellers are coming from. The vast majority of 00 modellers use commercial track, namely Peco Streamline 00/H0 track. For which the check gauge is 15.0mm i.e. even further outside the NMRA spec than 00-SF. Consequently, many modellers are used to the idea that models bump through crossings, drop into crossing gaps, collide with the nose of the vee, etc., and accept this as normal operation. For some this has been happening all their modelling life. So the improved running of their RTR models on 00-SF is very noticeable, even if it is less than perfect on some wheels which exceed the BEF. In most cases the interference is not so great that it can't be mitigated with some careful rounding of the vee nose, and much less than it would be with the same wheels on Peco track. Peco's 15.0mm check gauge originates from the much coarser wheels used on UK RTR models 20+ years ago when they were made in the UK (now all made in the Far East). Presumably Peco continue with it for compatibility with those older models, and because of the high cost of re-tooling. There are at least 4 track standards using the 15.2mm min check gauge, so 00-SF is hardly alone in infringing the NMRA standard in that regard: 00-SF 00-BF DOGA-Intermediate (15.2mm BEF max, check gauge 15.25mm min) H0-SF (Terry Flynn's AMRA standards) regards, Martin.

Hi, Not so. The original purpose of 00-SF (then called "EM minus 2") was to demonstrate the improved running of BRMSB 00 wheels on 1.0mm flangeways (as used in EM) instead of the usual 1.25mm flangeways used for BRMSB 00. That was in the early 1970s. I don't recall anything equivalent to DOGA-Fine being in use at that time, otherwise there would have been no need for "EM minus 2". At that time there was no thought of any relevance to RTR models, which were children's toys in those days. I have written more about the history of 00-SF here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/94567-00-sf-and-00-bf-can-you-mix/page-10&do=findComment&comment=1992551 Full information about 00-SF is on its own page here: https://85a.uk/00-sf/ regards, Martin.

Use a small pin hammer. Allow it to fall under its own weight for consistent results. If the resulting bends are too severe, move the underlying support rails closer together. With only a small gap between them, say one rail width, it requires a sharp tap to make a bend. The drawing perhaps shows the gap too wide: Thanks to Rod Cameron for this photo, showing the prototype set in the stock rail: And to Mick Nicholson for this one: More information about sets and joggles here: http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_postx.php?post_id=8209 regards, Martin.

Sheep may safely graze. Martin.

The tiny hidden churchyard at Pilleth in mid-Wales, site of the Battle of Pilleth in 1402. Grid Ref: SO 25631 68233 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bryn_Glas Martin.

Very wise. And make it a wired one. You can't make a 999 call with a flat battery.

There weren't any replies to this topic between those dates.

Nearest as the crow flies. It would be a tired crow.

Hi Derek, That has been the "standard" track building method for years. I've been much puzzled why so many builders lately are assembling entire crossings first. I think it may derive from finding pre-assembled crossings in turnout kits. Or maybe builders are following prototype practice. For models it is much better to gauge the closure rails and knuckles from the stock rails, and that also makes it much easier to get them aligned with the vee. But there is no agreement about whether the main road stock rail or the vee goes first. I prefer main-side stock rail, vee, turnout-side stock rail. regards, Martin.

Hi Kevin, For a long time railway modelling was about replicating the function of a railway rather than its appearance. It's strange that the modern trend has moved so far the other way, and maybe a bit sad. Have you seen "Paddington to Seagood"? Here's an excerpt: http://templot.com/martweb/info_files/seagood.htm Martin.

I'm assuming from the name of the reporter that there is a misprint on the date: http://www.suffolkgazette.com/news/morris-dancers-blind-footballers-brawl/

Hi Derek, Try bending the plain rail first, and then filing it back to a straight edge on the bench. The exact angle of the bend is not too critical, providing you file it back to a straight edge. Then put it in the jig to file the point. More information here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/100943-some-model-wheel-dimensions-that-affect-standards-and-running/&do=findComment&comment=1950737 regards, Martin.