47137

It's nice to watch trains go by, sitting down and looking across to them at eye level. At a station, you want to be able to look down onto the layout. And in the fiddle yard, a high stool is useful but you hop off it to alter the trains from time to time, and this is where most of the physical interaction with the layout happens. So (oh golly) . . . in recognition of your bench work in recent posts, but also the way timber structures can be altered . . . could the gradients go the other way? The terminus would be smaller, but the main line "above it" will push away to the back. This would suggest a sea level / coastal terminus which isn't might not be your intention. I found myself somewhat flamed on a topic a week or so ago, so please be gentle. - Richard.

Or even, a contented modeller. It is easy to compare oneself with others, and become vain or bitter. The hobby is so broad, happiness will come in different ways for different people. For me I'd be very pleased to achieve a uniform standard in the things I make. Anyway, there's a diversion until we learn more about the Locomotion model! - Richard.

I am a little troubled by the Mk 3 coaches - because I can imagine a situation where the best models every made were available for a limited period, in a one-off livery, and in only HST formats e.g. no buffers. If Rapido do make the coaches, and this allows a spin-off for the liveries of the production HST sets and for loco-hauled coaches, I think this would be marvellous, but I hesitate to write this without going off-topic. - Richard.

It was good to meet you Kit too - I felt your enthusiasm for the APT-E project has not waned at all in the last forty-odd years. I have always found rewriting history (or making it up from scratch!) always makes modelling a lot easier - and an imaginary Mk 5 tilt pack hidden under a floor panel sounds like the sensible way to go. Thanks again for the chat - I left the show knowing I had done the right thing with the pre-order for this train, and a feeling of quiet contentment that this is all so much worth looking forward to in the New Year. - Richard.

I thought I was being a bit of spend thrift buying two extra trailers but yesterday (Warley) I met Mr_Tilt and a chap who has ordered six extra trailers so I have relaxed. I'm thinking, put one of my trailers in a display cabinet (need to have a think about the second bogie) - but what about the interior of the another extra trailer? Open standard seating keeping the box of tilt control equipment in the middle? Or something more ambitious like a set of sleeper compartments? Or a kitchen? Bearing in mind it never existed, I have a free hand, but I'd like it to be plausible. Any ideas? - Richard.

For those unable to get to the Warley show - this is going to be a truly fabulous model, with much of its appeal in a staggering level of interior detail. Which you can see, thanks to the internal lighting. - Richard.

Looks superb! I bought two servos and a control board for them ages ago, this post should encourage me to have a go and try a working gate. - Richard.

Well I never - the postman has delivered the book this afternoon. There is no invoice or other paperwork in the package, but it has arrived. So I must call off the PayPal claim process. One first look at the drawing I really wanted, for the BR class 11, shows the wrong wheel diameter. I suspect these drawings are nice to look at, but unsuitable to model making. The dispute is over; and 'let the buyer beware'. I still feel sorry for the chap with the old landline phone. I'll give him a ring, tell him the return address on the back of the package. - Richard.

I sent away for a book of the drawings by PDH Drawing Services before I found this topic but clearly they have fulfilled orders in the past. Looking at the PDH Drawing Services web site and their PayPal details . . . PDH Drawing Services give a mobile phone number which does not exist PDH Drawing Services give a landline phone number for a property they left around 5 years ago (a landline now used by a person who acts as unwitting forced receptionist) PDH Drawing Services give an email address which they seem to ignore PDH Drawing Services took money through their web site but two weeks later have not acknowledged my order. I'm now waiting for the Paypal dispute process to run its course. But I've got a week or so to save the day - has anyone had recent dealings with this firm, and possibly some contact details that work? If you are PDH Drawings and you are reading this, the ball is firmly in your court. - Richard.

It is difficult to enter a 2000-post thread without risking a tangential or unwanted response, but here goes. About a year ago, I set up a test track of a sequence of 18-inch reverse curves (00 gauge) on a plank which I inclined at various angles. I ran half a dozen locos on this, four 0-6-0 locos and two locos 0-4-0 locos, all axles being driven. At 1:16, every loco slid downwards, and would sit at the bottom with its wheels slipping. At 1:17, every loco would climb the track, not only on its own but hauling two wagons (4-axle load), and go back down again under good control. There is something very ‘binary’ about the performance of steel wheels on steel rails - yes or no. So I settled on 1:20 for my own layout with its two-wagon trains, and having built this I’m happy. I know of a club layout with an unintentional c. 1:35 gradient on a very gentle curve and this consistently causes problems for steam locos with around 25 wagons, and no problems for bogie diesel locos with drive on 4+ axles. Conversely a layout with a carefully-designed 1:40 gradient on rather tighter c. 48 inch curves has no problem for a similar steam-hauled train. I don’t know if this will increase confidence, but you could try loading up a 12-wagon train with some weights, to take it up to the weight of around a 30-wagon train. This might be reasonable representative of the drawbar weight of an unloaded 30 wagons, with the increased load on the wheel bearings cancelling out the losses of track curves on the real layout. This will fit on a 6-foot plank with two yards of track. My gut feeling is 1:100 will not pose a problem, but I’m sorry I have nothing to offer to reinforce this. Richard.

I got a new battery for my laptop today: Something got lost in translation: - Richard.

Roco make an HO scale shunter, exported by EE to the Netherlands. This is not a class 11, but it is structurally the same - the differences are in details like lamps and the width of the front buffer beam. The model can be converted to a presentable class 11. Not a blind bit of help to a 4mm modeller . . . but then again, if a 4mm scale class 11 project did get off the ground, there would be a prospect of forced perspective modelling using a small prototype in a small layout. - Richard.

The A855 road approaching Duntulm, Skye This was a couple of weeks ago - 18 Sep 2015. - Richard.

Back to the trains - just saw a down (Norwich) express formed of ex-Virgin "Pretendolino" stock pass through Hatfield Peverel, this would have been the 1700 departure from Liverpool Street. This is not really 'news' (the transfer was reported in Rail Express last year) but I sort of took a double take on it. It looked so odd. Propulsion was by a Greater Anglia class 90 in white. - Richard.

Regarding both of these quotes, writing is only useful if it is understood, and I appreciate that I can achieve nothing here. To tidy up some loose ends: Thanks - I think this is the sort of thing which could enhance the standard. Thanks - I agree. No. I have tried and failed to show how the 00-SF standard might include guidance information, and also explanations of its purpose and benefits. I would love to see advice which explains potential benefits and pitfalls of using 00-SF; but certainly nothing as strong as a laid down practice. Yes I have suggested 4-SF should be a particular implementation of 00-SF. This is the best way I can imagine needing two names for what is otherwise apparently the same standard. Other approaches are possible. I cannot add anything further to this discussion without repetition; thanks everyone for putting up with me. - Richard.

I agree entirely that this topic is a discussion about choice, but the root of the subject is surely the standard? To my mind, standards have objectives, set rules and provide guidance; and the 00-SF standard would be clearer and less contentious if it did more of these. Then again, I may be suggesting something which is over the top for a model railway application. - Richard.

It might be simpler to drop the "H00-" part and call double N "DN". But probably not NN :-) - Richard.

Ok - 24 hours on, no takers, the implication is probably (going back to a previous post of mine) I'm not very good at team work either. The standard is best to state its objectives, including those for interoperability, compatibility, and having prototypical elements: 1) 00-SF is particularly good for interoperability because trains which run on it will run on other standards like 00-BF too. 2) If a single turnout or the ends of a chunk of complex trackwork are allowed to incorporate gauge flare, they become compatible with ready-made 16.5 mm gauge track. If gauge flare is forbidden, then an individual turnout can be re-used as part of a larger chunk. 3) The standard can choose to try to be more prototypical by forbidding gauge flare, but bearing in mind that the various dimensions are already optimised for models, there is probably little benefit in taking this as an argument. In the meantime, it's easy to choose 00-SF on a personal level, but difficult to recommend it (to let someone else choose it) on the basis of the standard, because the standard omits these things. - Richard.

Well, I'd want to keep only the very last part! I am reluctant to contribute to the Wiki at the moment, because I would want to separate out my contribution (be it practical advice, guidance or background information) from the mandatory requirements of the standard. By mandatory requirements, I mean things you must do to be able to call your track 00-SF. The obvious examples are crossing flangeway and check gauge (which are in the standard) and gauge flare (which is currently missing). If we were to add gauge flare to the standard for 00-SF, then we could write about the options for how to include the flare - inside a turnout, where a turnout joins plain line, or not at all, and the implications for doing this like buying second-hand trackwork. Choosing 'not at all' would equate to 4-SF. The mandatory part of the standard would specify the minimum flare length (needed for good running rather than aesthetics) and the maximum flared gauge (needed to keep all approved wheels on the tops of the track). To put my own cards on the table, I put the flare where it was easiest, sometimes inside a turnout and sometimes on plain line, but not between two turnouts. How about a quick straw poll (here, now)? If a majority say yes, we can proceed to thrash out the details. Should the 00-SF standard allow a gauge flare? (This is assuming we don't need ten posts to agree the question!) - Richard.

This has taken a while to write so it is a bit out of sync. I've not studied the Templot forum, but here is a worked-out example, perhaps this helps. This is a clause I have copied from the 00-SF Wiki: http://00-sf.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=History_of_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. This clause has limitations. We don’t know what a “train set curve” is. We don’t know which train-set curves are “sharp”. We don’t know why it is “important” to think about EM. We wonder whether “running lines” are different from sidings. The idea that 00-SF is not a modification from RTR 00 is rather confusing - are we talking about trains or track? We don’t know why the 30” minimum radius applies. And the word “it” appears three times, but we have to work out what “it” means. For me, I use 00-SF at 24-inch radius, so I know the 30-inch figure must be talking about something not described here; and at a personal level I think the terminology “train set” is derogatory. All in all, this is a rather negative clause - it tells the reader what 00-SF isn’t, but not what it is. The writing is characteristic of someone who knows their subject, but doesn't practice it much; and would be better if it was more inspiring. To do this, have a think about what the typical reader already knows. It is quite possible they are currently using 00, and pondering a shift to something a bit better. You don’t need to know anything at all about EM to use 00-SF, so mentioning EM as “important” is potentially quite misleading. We can use the present tense instead of the past tense too (this should liven things up), so we might try this: 00-SF is derived from EM. The 00-SF standard shares some EM conditions such as minimum radius, which for running lines should be about 750mm (30 inches) or greater. Sidings can use sharper curves, but this needs some gauge widening. This is a bit more upbeat, but begs new questions. I am looking at the diagram book for BR shunters, this tells me about locos which can negotiate one- and two-chain curves. One chain is 66 feet, about 10 inches in 4 mm scale. Two chains are about 20 inches. We want to know which locos can go into the sidings, and why sidings differ from running lines, and then realise we should be writing about the trains not the tracks: 00-SF is derived from EM. The standard shares some EM conditions such as minimum radius, which should be about 750mm (30") or greater for main-line locomotives. Shunters and small industrial locomotives (and many items of rolling stock) can use sharper curves, typically around 600 mm (24 inches) depending on wheelbase, axle sideplay and the sideways overhang of couplings. My last sentence here is a bit overblown, and so Shunters and small industrial locomotives (and many items of rolling stock) can use sharper curves, typically around 600 mm (24 inches) depending on the sideways overhang of couplings. At this point, the space-starved 00-gauge modeller looking for something better but used to fairly crippling curves may feel 00-SF is not for them. The specification should try to embrace as many users as possible, and so we might add: Gauge widening lets you use tighter curve radii. We can then say something about wheels to drive the nail home and complete the deal: 00-SF trackwork supports RTR wheels and finer-scale ‘kit’ wheels. Wheels set up for 00-SF will continue to run through Peco and similar pointwork. Gauge widening goes out to 16.5 mm (normal 00) and more on plain track, and trains will run through Setrack curves. We now have enough for two paragraphs, but I don’t like my “set up” and “will” - they are too off-putting, and the reference to “the standard” seems a bit pompous. I’ll use the imperative voice in the second paragraph too. And so, I get: 00-SF is derived from EM. 00-SF shares some EM conditions such as minimum radius, which should be about 750mm (30") or greater for main-line locomotives. Shunters and small industrial locomotives (and many items of rolling stock) can use sharper curves, typically around 600 mm (24 inches) radius depending on the sideways overhang of couplings. Gauge widening lets you use tighter curve radii. Use gauge widening out to 16.5 mm (normal 00 gauge) where needed. 00-SF trackwork supports RTR wheels, and wheels set up for 00-SF still run through Peco and similar turnouts, and through Setrack curves Sold? This is very much introductory stuff. The idea is to stay balanced, keep clear of too many restrictions, and get the reader to click a link for ‘specifications’ and stay hooked. Essentially, it (!) is iteration, not confrontation. - Richard.

Well, I think my explanation is clear and it represents a reasonable and workable point of view - but then I guess I would. I am no longer a user of Templot, if that helps. If my post adds "confusion" then this needs to be assessed by objective argument, not a burst of vitriol. To put it bluntly, 00 gauge is full of slop and the easiest way to get rid of this is make the gauge narrower. My layout has about 25 feet of track, and the gauge narrows in six locations which add up to barely two feet including an inset siding. This means over 90% of the layout is 16.5 mm gauge. I am happy to call this '00 gauge', in the same way that a person who builds 00-BF or 00-anything calls their layout 00 gauge. And, I see this approach as cost-effective, interoperable and above all sensible, and most certainly not a 'kludge'. I uninstalled Templot many months ago. I got the impression the software does not handle gauge widening (or narrowing), at least automatically. For my purposes it was more nuisance than it was worth - it is easier to just draw something with a flexi curve and then make it. If precise timbering locations (as I believe Templot provides) are a part of the 00-SF standard, this needs to be clarified. If specific prototypical crossing angles (say, 1:3.5 but not 1:3.45) are a part of the 00-SF standard, this needs to be clarified too. I'm intrigued to find out the real reason why "4-SF" has now appeared. The endless weasel words make me suspect it is because Templot cannot handle gauge flaring. I'm sure I won't wait long to be told I'm wrong; but I'm equally sure I could wait forever to find the real reason. In the meantime, 4-SF makes the 00-SF wiki and domain name look a bit awkward. Perhaps this is all dividing into two camps: the people who start with 00 and narrow the gauge as needed, and those who start with EM-2 and then widen it out for specific locations. Martin, don't take this personally but you could help yourself a great deal by adopting a style which lets the reader separate mandatory requirements from background information, subjective opinion and possible details of implementation. Or, get someone to do it for you; but I get the feeling that "teamwork" isn't really your thing. Otherwise, you will find yourself going over the same ground over and over again; and moreover, you will alienate the people you are trying to help. As it stands, a great deal of your narrative can only be understood and used in practice by someone who already knows what you are writing about. As I wrote some time ago, most standards used in industry (EN, BS, ISO, whatever) contain mandatory requirements and informative annexes. The solution is clear enough; but most of these works are team jobs and you will need to approach people who you can work with. I write this with sincerity; the message may well be better in a PM, but you explained some months ago that you wish all correspondence to be placed in an open forum. I think that's enough of my objection to 00-SF. - Richard.

My main objection to 00-SF is that the standard is badly written and so open to interpretation that it promotes apparently endless forum topics which add to the confusion or reduce to someone defending a particular corner. To my knowledge, 00-SF is useful for points and crossings, and all or almost all adopters are happy to use 16.5 mm gauge flexi track for their plain lines. So I suggest, the standard would be better expressed in terms of selective gauge narrowing like this: 00-SF is a variant of 00 gauge, which can give an improved appearance to points and crossings and better running for narrow wheels which will otherwise drop into crossing gaps. To do this, 00-SF uses a consistent crossing flangeway of 1.0 mm, a consistent check gauge of 15.2 mm, and selective gauge narrowing from the usual 16.5 mm down to a minimum of 16.2 mm. Maximum gauge narrowing is possible (and desirable) for crossings on straight track and curves with a radius greater than 30 inches (*). For crossings on tighter curves, the standard uses reduced gauge narrowing, and this gauge narrowing reduces to zero (16.5 mm gauge) for 18-inch curves. The length of flare of gauge from 16.5 mm plain line down to the applicable 00-SF gauge is not specified, but it can be hidden in a distance of 30 or 40 mm (*) on most curved turnouts. It is usual practice to maintain the chosen 00-SF gauge through the length of the wing rails, and also between the crossings of a crossover. On straight track and gentle curves (less than 30 inch * radius), the combination of 15.2 mm check gauge and 16.2 mm track gauge gives a check rail gap of 1.0 mm, and in essence the trackwork represents “EM gauge minus 2 mm”. For tighter curves, the check rail gap widens to a maximum of 1.3 mm, at 16.5 mm gauge. In other words, describe 00-SF as a variation of 00 (16.5 mm) rather than as a self-contained gauge in its own right. I realise, the idea of variable gauge may be a tough pill, but the 16.5/16.2 gauge tapers we use represents an infinite number of gauges so it makes sense to make the changes of gauge a primary feature of the standard. As a secondary benefit, this approach clearly shows how 00-SF continues to work at smaller curve radii. I’ve included the figures (*) to give sense and I realise some people may disagree with them for some or all circumstances. - Richard.

I am supposed to be building one of Martin's gauges but it's a fairly low priority because at the moment everything works and I don't honestly expect difficulties with future purchases of RTR locos from the last 20 years or so. If you hunt around on market stalls there are quite small internal calipers out there which are really nice for checking (tho' not setting) wheels. The small tips are easy to wipe along the insides of flanges regardless of a step there. These ones (and the micrometer) are by Moore and Wright. - Richard.

Please excuse me if I've posted this one before - Richard.

For shark lovers everywhere, especially those in distant lands. This shot was yesterday (Sunday), and the only view possible without looking through the emu beside it. Incidentally, all trains were using the "main line", the "electric" was being upgraded for Crossrail. - Richard.