Junctionmad

I simply pointed out that you are continually goading other members. I don't see how that contributes anything.

 

I have plenty of views on track standards, but no amount of your willy-waving is going to coax them out of me.

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

<p>

 

Goad

 

 

verb (T)

 

/ɡəʊd/

 

to make a person or an animal react or do something by continuously annoying or upsetting them:

 

• She ​seemed ​determined to goad him into a ​fight.
• He ​refused to be goaded by ​their ​insults.
• The ​runner was goaded on by his ​desire to ​keep up with the ​others.
• A ​group of ​children were goading (= ​laughing at or ​pushing) another ​child in the ​school ​playground.

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

Where would a newbie make an error if they knew that the 'point' had to be 16.2. This measurement clearly affects the crossing and the blades area, so all that's left are the area beyond these.

 

Dave

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

Ravenser.

 

Looking at the last sentence, what is traditional hand built track?

 

Please let us have the dimensions for this?

 

Dave.

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

Dave.

 

I've already posted on the subject of how to flair. See below to stat the discussion

 

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

................ The big question, of course is, do you move one rail .3mm or two rails each by .15mm. Personally, if I had to do this, I would move both rails on the point by 0.075 and both rails on the end of the RTR flex track inwards by the same amount. (Hope my maths hasn't let me down there).

 

Once again I reiterate; Why would anyone need an instruction on how to move a rail or rails .3mm. If they can build pointwork they don't need instructions.

 

This is, of course, complete and utter bo**ocks.

 

Or perhaps you are just winding us up like Ravenser loves to do.

 

Dave

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

Dave.

 

I've already posted on the subject of how to flair. See below to stat the discussion

 

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

................ The big question, of course is, do you move one rail .3mm or two rails each by .15mm. Personally, if I had to do this, I would move both rails on the point by 0.075 and both rails on the end of the RTR flex track inwards by the same amount. (Hope my maths hasn't let me down there).

 

Once again I reiterate; Why would anyone need an instruction on how to move a rail or rails .3mm. If they can build pointwork they don't need instructions.

 

This is, of course, complete and utter bo**ocks.

 

Or perhaps you are just winding us up like Ravenser loves to do.

 

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

Dave.

 

I've already posted on the subject of how to flair. See below to stat the discussion

 

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

................ The big question, of course is, do you move one rail .3mm or two rails each by .15mm. Personally, if I had to do this, I would move both rails on the point by 0.075 and both rails on the end of the RTR flex track inwards by the same amount. (Hope my maths hasn't let me down there).

 

Once again I reiterate; Why would anyone need an instruction on how to move a rail or rails .3mm. If they can build pointwork they don't need instructions.

 

This is, of course, complete and utter bo**ocks.

 

Or perhaps you are just winding us up like Ravenser loves to do.

 

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

:nono: :nono:

 

Not sure where the idea that 00-SF is intended for 16.2mm turnouts with 16.5mm plain trackwork suddenly appears from? Yes, you can do that (and many do/will). Others use 16.2mm 00-SF throughout, with all trackwork being hand-laid. And 00-SF has been that way since at least 2008 (when I began supplying 00-SF Gauges) and quite probably a lot earlier than that, when Martin was hand - building & supplying track commercially.

The term "4-SF" has exactly the same gauge dimensions & standards as 00-SF, just with a different name used within Templot for reasons Martin has already discussed elsewhere. Until a couple of days ago the "4-SF" didn't even exist, except perhaps within Martin's head .....

Brian

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

I think the answer is 'no'.  00-SF (or 4-SF) is a 16.2 mm track gauge intended to remove some of the 'slop' inherent in 'standard 00' and this is particularly important in the context of point work.  The gauge can be widened where curves are tight, as per the prototype, to 16.5 mm.  I don't see any reason for non-prototypical 'flaring' being specified within the 00-SF standard as a layout can be built to 16.2 mm gauge throughout (ie EM-2).

 

However, there is nothing to stop builders using 4-SF (00-SF) for the point and crossing work and standard 00 (ie 16.5 mm gauge) elsewhere (and I understand many do - probably far more than the number who use 4-SF (00-SF) throughout).  Where the builder chooses to transition from one standard to the other is up to the builder, but I think what you are seeking is a standard for the transition between standards.  I can't speak from experience, as I have yet to build a 4-SF turnout, but I intend to build my turnouts to 4-SF standard throughout and then transition the gauge over a short section of hand-built track to 16.5 mm gauge.  That is I will use the Exactoscale Fastrack sections for plain track (16.5 mm gauge), but will stop these a few inches short of the point-work shown on a template and use separate sleepers and chairs for this transition section.  This is my planned approach simply because I anticipate fewer issues if the transition is at least a full wagon length away from the wing rails.  Time will tell whether this gives me the look and running qualities that I hope for, but it's my opinion for now.  The absence of a 'standard' between standards is potentially a reflection of the relatively small number of users of 00-SF and also it will to some extent depend on the type of stock that you wish to operate. I would imagine that shorter wheelbase traditional stock will be able to cope with a gauge transition within the point work more readily than longer more modern air braked stock.

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

Hi Richard,

For me at least, the term "Gauge Flare" isn't helpful/may mislead. 00-SF has a track gauge of 16.2mm, which may subsequently incorporate gauge widening on curves as required (using well-proven tools such as 3-point track gauges) , depending on factors such as minimum radius and locos/stock used. Ultimately this gauge widening could result in a track gauge dimension of 16.5mm, for example. To me it's 00-SF (or 4-SF in Templot).

However, some (e.g. Gordon's excellent Eastwood Town layout) may choose to incorporate Gauge widening where not actually required, such as on plain trackwork of little or gentle radius. This may be due to several factors, such as a big layout is being constructed by one or two modellers and therefore the practicalities of building lots of trackwork isn't viable/isn't favoured. Therefore (as on Eastwood Town) the modeller favours the use of 16.5mm RTR trackwork where suitable.

For me at least it could be argued (pointlessly IMHO) that the layout isn't a "true" 00-SF layout. So what? It works for them and they're happy with it. For me I intend on my next layout to use 16.2mm 00-SF throught, using handbuilt trackwork only; it doesn't make it any better or worse, just more suitable/practical for my own personal circumstances and desires.

 

Brian

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.

There isn't any bickering. We are having a friendly discussion between people who simply have different points of view. That is the usual purpose of a forum.

 

I've noticed this tendency to object to anything remotely contentious on RMweb before. Unless everyone says "me too, yes, that's absolutely wonderful" there are those who find it uncomfortable -- some even actually ask for topics to be locked! The solution is really very simple -- if you don't like what you are reading, don't read it.

 

Martin.

100% Martin , spot on.

Congrats folks. Having wanted to better my trackwork for some time now, all this thread has done is make me want to stick with Streamline on the scenic section and Setrack in the fiddle yard. Carry on bickering.

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

This is misstated and misleading

 

Peco Streamline is not handbuilt track. I know of nobody building handbuilt pointwork to Peco's flangeways - not least because they don't openly admit what they are, and no gauges for 1.39mm flangeways are available.

 

The great majority of British layouts using handbuilt OO pointwork are built to the traditional 1.25mm flangeway of BRMSB OO, such gauges having been readily available for decades. These are also (just) within the tolerances of the OO Intermediate DOGA standard, and therefore compliant with it.

 

All modern RTR will run properly on such track , with check rails properly effective and no drop in. The repeated suggestion that modern RTR will only run reliably if the gauge is reduced to 16.2mm is wrong. OO-SF is not , repeat not, "the only way to get reliable running of modern RTR". Several hundred layouts built to a different track standard already have that, and can demonstrate it at shows across the land every weekend

 

(And that is if we can still speak of OO-SF as a track standard after the postings of the last week)

 

The confusion induced in favour of OO-SF has now reached the stage that experienced members on here are asking directly if it is being said that modern RTR won't run on SMP (because the track gauge is presumably wrong)

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)

:scratchhead: :scratchhead: :scratchhead:

trustytrev.

Fine , I think we get you don't understand

And there are a lot of less informed modellers here who are picking up on that, and thinking that they must use 4-SF for hand-laid track in order to run RTR reliably. Whereas hand-laid "00" would serve them just as well, without the min radius restriction.

 

 

 

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.

What I object(ed) to in 00-SF

 

1. The name overlapping with the widely understood meaning of 16.5 mm gauge - This confusion has now been somewhat fixed, but mostly only by Martin.

 

2. The many postings going above and beyond Martins claims of RTR and EM wheels fault free-running above a min radius of ~30 in and no-drop support for EM type wheels. No only are those postings still happening, but Martin almost never corrects any of those, despite them basically over-expanding his claims. I.e His continual silence gives tacit acceptance.

 

3. Objection 2 where the claims are expressed as overcoming problems with 16.5 mm gauge which don't actually exist or occur.

 

 

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

Hi Dave,

 

To build working diamond-crossings and slips the last thing you need is "subtle changes in gauge" anywhere within them. You do need an accurate template matched to the gauge, and Templot will print one for you.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

I never recommended any such thing as you well know. I didn't say templot wasn't useful or inaccurate either. I merely pointed out that track builders build track templot doesn't

Hello,

 

 

 

I think you are failing to recognise gauge flaring is not the same as gauge widening. Gauge widening is something done prototypically on curves with varying degree to avoid longer wheelbase locomotives spreading the track to excess and causing short wheel base wagons etc becoming derailed. The amount of gauge widening on prototypical track is carefully worked out by the permanent way engineers totaly defined by the type and size of locomotives. In real life not all locomotives can run on all lines especialy in goods yards.That is why short tank engines tend to do most shunting because it is just not practical to use huge locomotives for such tasks. It is also why they have limitations imposed with regard to the sharpness of curves for certain types of traffic.

Instead of permanet way engineers, people who build model track, usually use something called a three point guage, which automatically widens the gauge to a varying amount depending on the tightness of the curve. If you use it the wrong way round you will get gauge narrowing that renders the curve tighter than the locomotives or vehicles can negotiate. I fail to understand why narrowing plain 16.5 gauge track to match 4-SF is considered more difficult than the complexity involved faffing about varying the point and crossing gauge in multiple places.As far as I am aware points and crossings are not possible without curves in some form or other. It is a concept that is irrational and without logic or any sense whatsoever. As far as I am aware it is not the purpose of Templot to handle gauge flaring as it is not a prototypical concept. I wish those whom delight in causing confusion and engaging in obfuscation would go elsware for their childish and spiteful games. Better still they could spend the time mentioned in the previous sentence creating something superior to Templot and really impress us all. I won't hold my breath on that count. Some of the conduct on this Handbuilt Track and Templot topic prevents many people from deriving any pleasure. Is that not why we choose to engage in this hobby?

trustytrev.

What a rather strange reply. Templot neither supports " flaring" or gauge widening . So any such " techniques " are a function of track builders. This is the key here, templot has nothing to do with actually building real " model " track. It's a design aid.

 

For example I asked Martin to add a feature to flare exit and entry tracks. He refused and gave good reasons why he didn't want templot to support it. , that's fine and I have no issue. It doesn't in any way invalidate the technique of using 16.2mm point work connected to 16.5mm plain track , this is a " build " technique and it's perfectly valid.

 

 

Whether people use 16.5 mm and narrow to 16.2 at the crossing ( I don't reccomend that ) or they flair on the entry and exit tracks of formations back to 16.5 ( which I do ) is purely a function of the track builder. It has nothing at all to do with templot ( or whatever name Templot assigns to a collection of its settings )

 

This is what annoys me about this debate. Templot is a template producer , it doesn't build track to any standard. The track Builder does that. ( mostly with a collection of track gauges by the way , template is merely a guide, rather like the pirates code )

 

As for " prototypical concept '" really , let's review 00 track work for its " proto type concepts " I could mention incorrect tie bars , , improbable flange way, check rail gaps ", locking apparatus , stretchers , , sleeper lengths and widths , the gauge itself , vast over sized " fishplates " , improbable over springs, strange chairing , strange turnout operating methods , " insul frogs " , incorrect track formations ,incorrect rail profiles and on and on . What's proto- typical about a PCB strip soldered to a nickel silver rail or a copper rivet etc etc . Railway modellers are NOT network rail

 

You need to seperate templot , which is a design aid , from the requirements to build good , working 00 nominal gauge model railway track, which requires compromises that " may " involve subtle changes in gauge if the builder wishes to achieve certain running advantages. Whether that's 00-SF ,0r 00-my elbow , is irrelevant , what works , s what works.

 

The issue is to build superior trackwork, whatever that's means to the builder , not about building a superior TEMPLOT which is purely in martins domain and if I'm not mistaken has NEVER. Been the subject of any criticism in these threads.

 

Regards

 

Dave

Hi Dave,

 

The term "00-DN" was coined by me, so if I say it is 3.75mm/ft then it is 3.75mm/ft.

 

In any event I have now changed it to "H00-DN" to indicate the hybrid scale.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

If you cannot see the issue Martin, I'll leave it at that. I shall continue to use and recommend your fine software to help me achieve what I regard as the best track work for my needs and compromises, in that, templot aids me greatly in my design process , irrespective of what the specific menu settings are named , which as you say is solely your purvey

 

Thanks

 

Dave

Martin. 00-DN , is clearly using a mathematical scale to generate an equivalent to SMP or similar flexi track sleeper spacing as I understand it. It's clearly not a 3.75mm ft scale., in the sense that it's clearly designed for 4mm models. Equally the rail profile remains unchanged.

 

This obsession with ratios , most merely designed to achieve a drawing to match a real life thing is quite baffling.

 

Clearly Andy is designing for 4mm 00 scale models.

 

The ratios used in Templot to achieve that end are completely superfluous in achieving that goal , merely being a way to " render" a particular " look and feel" to 00 gauge track . This occurs all the time in railway modelling. If I reduce my platform length to 2/3 of the proto type I am clearly not changing scale. Equally if I reduce my sleeper length to produce a particular visual effect , I am clearly not changing scale from 4mm. How I achieve that in templot is entirely irrelevant to the scale I am modelling in.

 

To suggest otherwise is to give templot gauge generating abilities. Templot doesn't produce or define gauge standards , it merely may or may not reflect what users want from it and whatever names they give to the process to achieve that. As an example, autocad doesn't design buildings, buildings are designed in autocad. It aids the design process. Templot is the same. It has no control over the final production of the trackwork

 

Hence H00-DN , 4 -SF et all are merely names assigned to a set of parameters collated together in templot ( might be easier of you had no names and let users define their own ! )

 

Gauge standards are set by bodies attempting to define wheel and track standards. Gauges are set by physically producing products to a particular set of dimensions. Templot has no roll in defining that. Track builders do.

 

This is where I feel you mix up roles. Advocating a gauge is entirely different from simply configuring a series of settings under a settings name

 

00-SF is clearly out there in the market place and is clearly defined by its usage amongst modellers. 4-SF is a collection of settings in Templot. Which may be used to build a number of track standards including 00-SF for example.

 

Whether you coined 00-SF or not is irrelevant , it's defined by its usage.

 

Regards

 

Dave

I disagree. 00 is NOT a scale, but a scale / gauge combination. The scale is 1:76.2 or 4 mm on the model represents 1' on the prototype (often referred to as 4mm scale).

 

00 is the combination of a scale of 1:76.2 and a track gauge of 16.5 mm

P4 is the combination of a scale of 1:76.2 (exactly the same as 00), but with a track gauge of 18.83 mm (which is a true 1:76.2 scale dimension).

H0 is the combination of a scale of 1:87 and a track gauge of 16.5 mm (exactly the same as 00).

 

Sorry, this is not the origins of the term "00". It was clearly intended to be primarily first a SCALE. The track issue was merely a compromise because nothing else was available. I'm sure if at the time 00 was popularised an RTR track builder could have been convinced to d0 an 18mm track , 00 would have continued to mean just that , ie 4mm modelling.

 

In the interim we have got used to the shortened monikers like p4, em, 00 etc.

 

P4 is purely a track and wheel standard. And it's clearly not 18.83mm because 21mm irish gauge modellers are clearly p4. You will notice that scalefour does not specifically mention a track gauge. It encompasses all 4mm modellers ( OO) that wish to use close to proto- typical track and wheel standards in whatever gauge they use.

 

Note that EM is also not defined as 18.2 . But also supports p4

 

Hence to properly define 00 modellers you have to seperate track standards from scale.

 

A p4 modeler is clearly a 00 modeller, often they are called finescale 00. P4 is not a scale per se

 

Dave

Hi Dave,

 

SMP is not as close to 00-DN as I originally thought. The sleepers on my SMP are a bit too close together, and rather too wide. The differences in the dimensions are not large, but I was surprised at how different 00-DN track looks when compared with SMP. I'm considering scrapping my SMP, or relegating it to less visible areas on the layout.

 

Cheers!

Andy

I'm actually looking at building 16.2 mm turnouts with 1mm flange ways and marrying to 16.5mm C& L track and trying to set that up in templot . I have 150 metres of plain track to build and I ain't hand building that !!

I'm calling it 00- DAVE , it's derived from gauge 1 finescale with decimal fractions of mm added as appropriate !!

 

Regards

 

Dave

00-HO , as in scale -gauge is a compromise standard , a very severe compromise. Hence discussions talking about 16.2 or 16.5 are entirely superfluous, Both are clearly incorrect. Hence sorting about gauge faring or narrowing are utterly ridiculous in the context of what is 00 gauge running on H0 track.

 

To argue then 4-SF is EM -2 and not 16.5 - .3 plus a mpd to flange ways is just semantics. It's like insisting athat 1'4" is defined by saying its 2' - 8" rather then others arguing its 1' plus 4".

 

Nobody is confused , nobody is assured by either arguments.

 

As for Templot users will continue to use whatever gauge suits them , and WILL continue to modify the template to suit or build track to their own specific requirements. Whether it's 4-SF , H00-DN or 00-SF or whatever blooming moniker people want to assign, they will build it.

 

Martin explained why he believes a variable gauge template isn't a good idea and actually thinking about it , I have no issue what so ever with his comments in relation to that. To suggest that retaining 00-SF or renaming it to 4-SF will " protect " him from so called blame seems utter nonsensical. Firstly it's nothing to do with him how his templates are used in practice and secondly he would be well advised to ignore such " banter " as has been witness about wheel bump etc on this sub-forum.

 

My argument is merely we have now two monikers that apply to the same track standard. That just generates confusion

 

Ps to be consistent H00-Dn should be 4-DN , since 00-DN in fact is a derivative of 00-SF to accommodate SMP sleeper spacing but retain the gauge advantages of 4-SF

 

 

I'm happy to be associated with track built to 16.2mm throughout, and such track is now called 4-SF in Templot.

indeed

 

and no doubt people will gauge vary that just as much as they did 00-SF and the  wheel bumpers will argue 4-SF just like 00-SF.  

 

And its clear that you have taken certain made up criticisms  of 00-SF far too much to heart 

 

however I think you have made up your mind and that that 

 

 

(BTW, what is your name?)

A quick scan of any of several posts above will reveal that mystery