Junctionmad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

but given nothing changes Martin and we have a body of information out there for 00-SF and track gauges etc being offered by two commercial companies, all this does is create massive confusion Simply removing 00 , will in effect do nothing, its clear the gauge is designed for 00 scale models people are not going to see any issue that 4-SF clears up over 00-SF , I fail to see why you would feel that the confusion generated by a moniker change for what is in effect a completely nebulous benefit is worth doing that . I appreciate its your ball ( Templot) and you can play with it as you like, but I dont see the gain and I do see a very real confusion being generated as a downside You could easily say the same thing for 00-DN or any 00 gauge that in effect isn't PECO. because the rail spacing is only on aspect of what we have to deal with in 00 modelling As a compromise why not leave 00-SF and add 4-SF , you make it clear that 4-SF is a EM-2 gauge whereas 00-SF is similar to OO-DN clearly designed for 00 use just my tuppence , Dave

OMG , Ive just realised 4-SF is EM-2, gauge narrowed EM, the sky is falling

really depends on who is setting the " concept and intent ". The track builder is surely king here.

Your application is somewhat specific Andy, to say the least . I think what Gordon means is that ultimately you build using track gauges not paper templates. However for diamonds and slips etc, a great reliance on the template is needed

a very model of a reasonable answer Martin , but , then , why change the moniker , by " flaring 4-SF" we are back to 00-SF

+1 Gordon, however the issue is now the wholesale confusion as newbies grapple with 00-SF, 4-SF etc etc etc Templot has never supported variable gauge and in fairness Martin made that clear to me. however Templot is a template generator as you say and as such is irrelevant to whats actually made by the respective track builder. There was never any confusion on this subject , and even Andy R, was arguing about wheel drop not about gauge narrowing. however confusion has now been generated for no real reason and thats a great pity

I think we can use this as a parable , assign the characters as you will

tsk tsk, thats so last year, now its 00-DN

I never narrow the gauge, I model in 00 scale with 16.2mm track , I widen the gauge to accommodate flex track I call that concept 00-SF. in fact it seems because i simulate SMP sleeper spacing and length, which itself is a compromise , I'm actually using 00-DN seriously Martin you are having a laugh , in the thread about mixing 00-SF and 00-BF you specifically mentioned it could be all used together along with PECO, when the trains are running over the 00-SF or 4-SF sections, there is defacto gauge narrowing I mean , really , this is angels on a pin stuff.

+1, however that discussion which has now been going on for the best part of two years has suddenly lead to much confusion it seems I would never suggest gauge narrowing in the middle of complex formations, or attempting to use a 16.5 template and narrowing it to 16.2, that will cause loads of issues in diamonds and elsewhere. Its merely an idea to flair the entry and exit tracks from such formations back to 16.5 its clear that such technique is now known as 00-SF, a correct derivative. Templot provides no support for 00-SF , but of course you can use 4-SF or 00-DN templates to " simulate 00-SF point work ". remembering to flair back to 16.5 ( using track gauges) only at on the plain exit and entry track of such point work or point work formations

a quote by Martin That may be Martins " intended " use for 00-SF or 4-SF or whatever its called today. But its not MY intent, or several other peoples, I have a right to my intent. I know what I am doing whenI gauge narrow from 16.5 to 16.2. personally anyway Im gone to 00-DN

My request to Martin is somewhat out of context , nor D&D it show confusion exists. I was merely looking to replicate Gordon S work with 00-SF through the point work connected to standard SMP flexi. Martin seems to think this shows confusion ! ( but it's also in the context of 00-DN ) which is 16.2 yet designed to basically match SMP etc. I fully understand why a few people might build the layout completely inn16.2. However I would contend is a terribly small minority. Most would use SMP r c&l flexi

The bickering has come from one person and Martin would be well served just to ignore it. You itself have just expounded in essence the variable gauge argument. Clearly smp and c&l are visual improvements over peco , which is a HO gauge track. To argue otherwise would suggest you think p4 isn't either. The primary improvements are in improving sleeper size and placement Anyway the " with it people. " have moved to 00-DN

On the subject of confusion I would quote this exchange from Martin in January Clearly this is not promoting a seperate gauge. This was followed closely there after by a post from a Hayfield Yet at the tine Martin you made no comments about " confusion" and proceded to contribute to the thread. So we had no confusion in January but we do have now ? I would point out to people that 00 is first and foremost a SCALE. in fact ther is no such thing as 00 track at all, proper scale 00 track is.called P4. What we have today is 00 scale models running on H0 dimensioned track , or derivatives or it. Hence the 00-SF moniker is just as valid. And it is a derivative of 16.5 mm HO track ( it's matters not where the dimensions came from, it's clearly intended to be used by 00 SCALE stock ) I remain bewildered at the issues over nomenclature which are utterly irrelevant

It's matters not, exactly where you do it. You can add a little exit and entry track to your templot 4-SF design and flair that to 16.5 , of course common sense will suggest you retain a common consistent gauge through a complex series of immediately connected together point work. , eg crossovers , diverging junctions etc. no one ever suggested otherwise nor to my knowledge built anything like that It's no wonder people are laughing at us.

I think the EMGS would be very unhappy if we went about promoting a nomenclature like that as it would suggest some imprimatur from them. Perhaps we could call it " 18-2+.2 gauge " or DOGAF-.3. Then theres the Aussies.