47137

Thanks Richard. That's great.

 

It is not actually my job to explain 00-SF.

 

That's why there is a 00-SF wiki. Why not post all that on there?

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.

Sorry, I have no idea what such a style would look like. I do my best to answer questions in a way that will be understood, but I'm aware that my writing style doesn't suit everyone. A subject which we have discussed on the Templot Club forum in the past.

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.

All the more reason not to use it in reference to 16.2mm.

 

I'm not worrying too much. I am maybe explaining too much. Writing too much. Spending too much time at the keyboard. I shall stop now.

 

Martin.

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.

I can hardly believe that 8 years later I am still posting dimensions about 00-SF.

In international and normalised standards (IEC, EN, BS, ISO and so on), it is usual for the whole publication to begin with the mandatory requirements ("the standard"), which it follows with a series of informational annexes. The annexes do not add new requirements, but rather they help users to apply the standard. The new 00-SF wiki seems an ideal place to add informational articles - for example understanding the standard, how to measure BEF, known compatibility of RTR products, tooling up, moving from Peco and so on.

- Richard.

If you do a Google search for "DOGA fine layout" you get nothing, and refining the search to "DOGA fine layout rmweb" gets just one ("Bitton") plus of course loads of explanations and comparisons with 00-SF. And, the DOGA intermediate standard doesn't seem to share much common ground with commercial track like Peco.

 

It seems to me, 00-SF is a natural progression from 00-BF and from EM, but not from either of the DOGA standards. Perhaps this is another reason to choose 00-SF.

 

(I want to write to the DOGA, but their web site gives no address)

 

- Richard.

I made this post with sincerity and thoughtfulness - and I've now made a mental note to never again mention the DOGA on the rmweb.

I've also realised, I don't need to write to them; and indeed, I most certainly don't want to.

It is said a week is a long time in politics, but 24 hours is plenty here.

- Richard.

I am building track today, anyone else doing the same?

Afraid not - I am taking in the delights of spreading kitchen foil and plasticine over stones from the garden, and pouring plaster casts to make some cliffs. Also, being self-employed, I'm working a while today too. However, you do remind me I might resolder my broken tiebar. This is my only 00-SF snag to date, and for some reason this one has failed twice.

- Richard.

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.

I submit this photo to show that at least some Peco turnouts do use wing rails with a web, though tapered. This is from one of their code 75 turnouts. I don't know about the moulding process.

For what it's worth - this is my first 00-SF turnout - vee and wing rail parts from a Peco left hand small radius turnout, soldered onto copperclad. I couldn't use the turnout anywhere on my layout so I cut it in half, "made" a LH catch point, and then "made" this. It's not really a bad way to start - the machining on the vee rails lets you use either rail as the nose. Also the notches show how to bend FB rail. The only filing needed is the two point blades and the recesses for them in the stock rails.

A casual inspection of this shows why I started my own 00-SF topic, which began asking about bends on the ends of wing and check rails. Nevertheless, this model got me started and I encourage anyone who is reading these threads to spend an evening with a soldering iron and see how you get on. I went on to build six more, and I'm an easy convert to the cause. I arrived here from using Peco for some years (for another post: I'm a long way from retirement) and then a dabble in EM some years ago, not other hand-built 00 standards.

- Richard.

This may help, Richard...

 

Not sure how current it is.

 

http://www.doubleogauge.com/dogaposter.pdf

The file properties show it was created on 1st April 2007 . . . hmmm.

- Richard.

If you do a Google search for "DOGA fine layout" you get nothing, and refining the search to "DOGA fine layout rmweb" gets just one ("Bitton") plus of course loads of explanations and comparisons with 00-SF. And, the DOGA intermediate standard doesn't seem to share much common ground with commercial track like Peco.

It seems to me, 00-SF is a natural progression from 00-BF and from EM, but not from either of the DOGA standards. Perhaps this is another reason to choose 00-SF.

(I want to write to the DOGA, but their web site gives no address)

- 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.

I'm not entirely happy with using my figures above (posts 29 and 27) because there is always an error on a measurement and taking two measurements and adding them together makes things worse.

So - I've been into Chelmsford market and bought a pair of internal calipers. Moore and Wright no less. And cleaned up the faces on my metric micrometer (also M&W) and checked the zero. My metalwork teacher should be smiling.

Holding a rigid feeler gauge against the side of the moulded check rail and as parallel to the stock rail as I possibly can, here are my measurements for check gauge a few millimetres beyond the open ends of the wing rails:

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.

My figures above are for the crossing flangeways.

The check rails are moulded and are harder to measure with confidence because slight pressure from a feeler gauge will push them away. My measurements for the check rails:

between 1.30 and 1.35 mm - the curved route on the medium radius right point

between 1.35 and 1.40 mm (feels close to 1.40 mm) on the other five locations.

Some of these check rails - one especially (the straight on the small radius right) are decidedly non-parallel with their adjacent stock rail. I'm giving the smallest dimension here.

I'm using metric feeler gauges. I never thought they would be so useful - I only bought them for a 1 mm shim! I could really go to town with some paper or kitchen foil and a micrometer if this is useful. Next week I can measure some newly-bought code 100 insulfrog ones - and report back if other club members don't send for men in white coats.

Packaging long gone I'm afraid.

- Richard.

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.

 

. . . and . . . 

 

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.

I have three Peco Streamline points on my layout. I bought these in February this year:

Code 75 small radius right supplied in clear plastic wallet

Code 75 medium radius right supplied in clear plastic wallet

Code 75 small radius wye supplied in cardboard box

I have measured them carefully. The crossing flangeway is around 1.4 mm on five out of six flangeways, and nearer 1.3mm on the sixth flangeway (being the curve on the small right). The track gauge is consistently around 16.6 mm on four of the six related gauges locations, but I cannot get the vernier square on the fifth and sixth (being the wye) due to obstructions nearby. Perhaps someone could measure some more, including some code 100 ones?

If we can get a bigger sample, we might be able to add Streamline (at least, current code 75 Streamline) to the list of pointwork with a 15.2 mm check gauge. The measurements I have taken probably help to explain why I am so happy with my running at the moment too.

- Richard.

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.

Martin,

This is one of the most poignant quotes I have ever read on these forums. It makes me smile too; but above all it seems most usefully substantive.

Thank you.

- Richard.

My own reason for choosing 00-SF was to make better-looking points and to keep interoperability with the 00 gauge club layout. RTR wheels set up for 00-SF also run through Peco points and 00-BF, though not necessarily the other way round. The thinnest wheels I possess measure code 91, and while wheel drop happens on the coarser standards, this was not a decision maker for me.

This interoperability lets me run my trains on a main line club layout from time to time as well as on my own layout, and lets me use some Peco points on my own layout too.

The fundamental dimensions are check gauge and the crossing flangeway gap. The track gauge is derived from these (add together). If I needed to run coarser wheels which won't fit a 1 mm flangeway, I'd look into a 1.1 mm flangeway with 16.3 mm gauge, or 1.2 mm with 16.4 mm gauge before committing to 00-BF. The only extra tool needed is different feeler gauges for the crossing flangeway.

My own track has a representation of British HO scale timbering, as preparation for a British HO layout. I discovered the HO-SF setting in Templot rather late in the day, so I think it would be best to say my SF efforts are 00-SF not HO-SF. The differences in geometry are too minor to get into detail here, and calling it 00/HO-SF would be wrong.

When I ponder a new layout, the interoperability factor always seems to come back to me and win. And so I'm tending towards the British HO option rather than EM at the moment.

- Richard.

A little gem

Yes it is - it looks fabulous, a truly delightful model.

- Richard.

next stage will be lighting ... no idea what will work, especially as it would be nice not to have shadows on the sky

I have used those flexible strips of LEDs with some success. You could start putting with two pieces of "daylight white" and one piece  of "warm white" across the top of the enclosure, immediately behind the front edge and angled down towards the back of the baseboard. This will effectively make a large number of point sources, and shadows will be minimal. (Link to what I did.)

With a layout in an enclosure, it might be useful to put one or two strips of warm white vertically up one side, behind a narrow fascia and pointing across the model away from the viewer. The idea being to add some modelling to the scene. which would come from low sunlight.

If you try LEDs prepare to buy a dedicated mains power unit for them.

- Richard.

If I draw the MX-5 alongside a Landrover Discovery or Evoque or similar, I am invariably asking for trouble. Most likely the driver never saw me arrive, and may well simply drive across me. I'd like to imagine these vehicles being given blind spot mirrors like lorries, but it's a vain hope and the drivers of these must be treated with extreme caution.

I suspect these vehicles are bought by drivers who have poor observation skills to start with, and the reduced peripheral visibility goes completely unnoticed.

If I may allowed the tiniest rant, I'd like to see these things classified as commercial vehicles. This would keep them out of car parks, out of the outside lane of motorways and hopefully governed below 60mph too. Dream on I guess.

- Richard.

Another suggestion for the models:

The blanked-off moulded ends might look better if it was possible to fit small pieces of mirror across them on the insides. Not sure how to go about this, just a loose idea!

- Richard.

I saw a few in the cabinet at Hattons. It was the wheel profile which really stood out - I'd say that was as near as dammit RP25-88. The other thing that stood out was the price tag - we are now in the age of the £100 shunter.

I've put a micrometer across mine, they are 0.110 inches so I think it's partly an optical illusion because they do look really good. The age of the £100 shunter comes along with the age of really nice RTR wheels.

- Richard.

Ickworth (Suffolk), earlier today.

- Richard.

On the way to work this morning...

Overtake over lots of interesting paintwork almost straight into a right-turning van.

 

I seem to have titled this video Audi... Had my hat-cam been working properly the other week I'd have a couple called Dacia...

The guy had hope in his heart when he passed the turning on the right - but if there was no paint at all on the road, I suggest he wouldn't have made the attempt at all.

- Richard.