Junctionmad

I find it incredibly strange that people who find threads " boring " somehow persist in reading them, then feel it's necessary to remind everyone they are bored with it and typically try and denigrate the people who are quite happily having the " discussion" I mean it not like we using up a finite number of electrons or something Why read and even bizzarely contributed to a topic that bored you. There are hundreds of topics on RMweb I have no interest in at all , do I visit each one , point out how 'boring it is " , denigrate the contributors and leave !!! There are several issues being discussed here , and we have passionate adherents on all sides , battling the ball back and forth. What's not useful is those on the sidelines shouting insults

In fairness Martin has repeatedly posted links to the 00-SF site that explains all the basics.

The problem is blogs are probably a better " fora for the dissemination of information then discussion forums. Learning from Forums is a bit like trying to understand the rules of rugby listening to a series of passionate supporters argue about the rules, the ref , the latest game , all at the same time. The best advice , is rather then get frustrated trying to particulate in the free for all , why not start a topic and ask specific questions , generally those who reply will try to stay on topic and answer your question (s) !! It's worth pointing out that discussion forums don't exist to educate anyone !!! They exist to stimulate discussion. Such discussion may be educational or it may not be. Neither can anyone " cry " " stop and educate me ". Whether that happens is purely at the behest of contributors ( to be fair , most are more then willing to help) Dave

I've said it s few times , too much of this debate is about semantics. Templot has even added to that semantic confusion by replacing the 00-SF with 4-SF. ( for good reasons , but it still adds to the confusion ) In reality both Brian and Gordon are using 00-SF or 4-SF standards, even if they are implementing such standards n a different way. I've presented a case that you could separate the two methods by using the two monikers in separate ways 00-SF to represent the use of gauge narrowing at the common crossing to get many of the claimed benefits, the moniker indicates that the track work is predominantly 00 gauge 4-SF as Martin rightly States is not 00 in the accepted sense it's a different gauge like EM or P4. A modeller working in 4-SF would be normally expecting to build all the track work to the 4 SF standard. Hence Gordon, hayfield , myself etc are modelling in 00-SF , ie track work that is a derivative of 00 , Brian ( poly bear ) is therefore modelling in 4-SF , which is a derivative , as Martin points out , a derivative of EM Dave

Yes Martin But today , what is the common 00 hand built track standard. I'm genuinely interested. Would it be DOGA fine , even inadvertently , given the turnout kits. Personally I know of so few modellers that choose 00 hand built. Most live with PECO. The hand builders have mostly gone to p4 it seems

16.5 ( well the 00 version is )

00-SF was always 16.2 gauge 00-SF was always 16.2 gauge, that's what the track gauges were made to

I would counter by saying that " beginners " rarely touch hand built track at all. But those that want to access this part of the hobby, are most likely not true beginners. Most want to build track be use it lets then more closely approximate the flow and complexity of prototype track work. Things like points on curves , proper geometry of junctions etc. Hence a simple discussion on the appropriateness of gauge flaring ( or gauge transistion ) is useful. Gordon S has illustrated his particular concepts in that regard My own point was simply that 00-SF should or could contain guidelines as to how it handed gauge transitions. Whereas for the 4 -SF modeller it doesn't apply Regards Dave

So why do it. Again what do you hope to achieve. For those of us using or contemplating 16.2 there are issues that are useful to discuss , For example there has been a spirited discussion wheel drop on gauge flaring etc , but for those of you that have stated you have no interest , why post here it's just trolling FFS , I despair, as was pointed out , all there is here is a discussion on aspects of 16.2 track. Into that discussion, certain people with no interest in the gauge just sit on the sidelines and throw hand grenades. If you have just an interest , then just read the thread. If you have something Meaningful , for or against the various points being debated then by all means contribute.

I've not goaded anyone. I am a proponent of 16.2 , please withdraw that and aim your bile at other threads thanks. What is it that attracts this sort of poster to these threads , I despair By the way I asked Ravenser a straight forward serious question about hand built 00 track Oh and I'm sure that if in the unlikely chance that Ravenser feels " goaded " he will say so. He doesn't needs the likes of you sh&t stirring

CHARD , could I ask what you wish to contribute to this thread , you have previously stated you would not consider 16.2mm . I mean are you just looking for threads on rmweb to create confusion and obfuscation. Why come here? . There are people here who have different views , but at least they have a view on track standards. I don't see what you expect with your contributions

Because in complex formations it would be unwise to transistion anywhere except in a plain track segment

My thoughts too, what exactly is British outline 00 hand built track ? Ravenser ? ( ps your answer cannot include mention of nmra )

Martin has warned of the potential risks in variable gauge construction. I have mentioned that flaring should be done at the exit and entry tracks of formations. I would advise against doing do within the body of the point Hence a few guidance notes might help a newbie not make an error

I certainly would disagree with modifying plastic flexi track As its a kludge melting chairs and it produces a piece of flexi that can't be used elsewhere. I flair the 16.2 gauge to 16,5 at the entry and exit points of turnout formations, since I build, like many others , the formations on one template. Since I'm building the track, it's easy on both soldered and plastic on ply construction to use a 16.5 gauge to return the 16.2 gauge point work to 00 gauge within a sleeper length or two. My point remains suitable for use in any future 16.5mm layout without further modification Dave I certainly would disagree with modifying plastic flexi track As its a kludge melting chairs and it produces a piece of flexi that can't be used elsewhere. I flair the 16.2 gauge to 16,5 at the entry and exit points of turnout formations, since I build, like many others , the formations on one template. Since I'm building the track, it's easy on both soldered and plastic on ply construction to use a 16.5 gauge to return the 16.2 gauge point work to 00 gauge within a sleeper length or two. My point remains suitable for use in any future 16.5mm layout without further modification Dave

Well it's more then that 00-SF moniker was created by Martin and he has decided to undo it. Hence we can use that moniker to represent anything we like now

So let's have a proposed semantic roundup 00-SF is for people building point work to 16.2 and connecting it to 16.5 00 track ( hence the 00 in 00-SF ). We need to have a discussion about gauge flairing , but that's seperate. The . Transition can be made over one sleeper spacing in reality 4-SF is a different gauge where the whole layout is 16.2mm nominal Hence absolutely 00-SF should contain instructions for gauge flaring to avoid newbies , returning the gauge to 16.5 in the wrong place And equally 4-SF should have no flaring guidelines as the standard is a completely different gauge See , simples Dave

More arguments about semantics. Gauge widening takes place typically because it needed , on places like sharp curves. Gauge flairing has been used to describe a method of incorporating some of the benefits of 00-SF into 16.5mm track instruction , or by narrowing at the common crossing and returning to 16 .5 elsewhere. To differentiate this from gauge widening , we are using the term gauge flaring Gordon clearly uses 00-SF exactly like I and others ( hayfield ) etc are using it , I flare only at the ends of formations , not within the turnout assembly itself. That's that's , the semantic argument continues One could argue by dint of actual usage that 00-SF is this technique whereas 4-SF is a continuous gauge throughout all the track and as Martin pints out is different to 00.

100% Martin , spot on.

Why , what has been said that makes you wish to stay with streamline. I mean a convinced streamline user is unlikely to hand build track anyway , so it's largely irrelevant

I never specifically stated RTR or even RTR only. Here , we typically have a mix of wheel standards , including RTR wheels of various profiles and kit and other third party wheels. These DO NOT all run well on Peco Correct, 00-SF is not the only way to get good running on RTR , or even across a typical uk wheelset usage . There are other approaches. , however 00-SF is one such way. So too is 1mm flange ways and hence 16.2 mm at the crossing flaring to 16.5. ( whatever name we call it , and being careful about complex formations)

Fine , I think we get you don't understand

Again Andy when you mention 16.5 mm handmade what 16.5 standard are you referring to. Over here I suppose the defacto 16.5mm is PECO and handmade track to finer 16.5mm crossing standards does clearly provide better running. Builders of hand built 16.5mm track including plain track are as rare as hens teeth this side of the pond.

Andy , your objection is noted , and has been " sigh " repeatedly noted. To those that use 00-SF , in particular those who gauge narrow , have shown the the technique helps. So let's call that 00-SF. ( since the majority track gauge is 16.5 ) I don't see why you repeat your objections ad nauseum 4-SF is a group of 1-2 people working in 4mm to the foot who have adopted a 16.2mm track gauge for the complete layout. They obviously see some. advantages , but I would suggest given the motivations I would suggest p4 would be a more rewarding home. I personally see no real difference in min radius between any of them, min radius tends to be determined by the choice of coupler and locomotive rather then anything else. It's clear that 16.2 gauge widened can be laid to very tight radius , even it it's not practical to do so, in practice 16.5 mm track tends to have working min radius of 30" if any sort of non tension lock is being used in my experience Also Andy. When mentioning 16.5mm you need to specifically reference what variant you mean ie what flangeway clearance and check rail clearance , are you referring to 16.5 by PECO , DOGA-fine, DOGA -intermediate , etc etc or perhaps you are referring to HO standards from somewhere else on the planet

My experience is in building test formations in 00-SF. To me this is 16 .5mm plain track , in my case tests with both smp and C&l , with the entry and exit track flared in to 16.2mm to ( a) visually improve the common crossing and (b) allow the common crossing to better handle a diverse range of wheelsets. My tests show like Gordon S , that the concept works. The rest is a discussion on semantics that's all Regards Dave