Using the easy-assembly Finetrax pointwork kits in 00 and EM (and in P4 from the S4 Society)

[whart57]

18 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

The answer being that EM and 00-SF are variants of the same standard, with the same switch opening. 00-SF was originally known as "EM minus 2".

 

 

Can someone indulge this anything-but-4mm-scale modeller by explaining what OO-SF is and what the thinking behind it is?

[martin_wynne]

24 minutes ago, whart57 said:

 

Can someone indulge this anything-but-4mm-scale modeller by explaining what OO-SF is and what the thinking behind it is?

 

 

Hi,

 

This has been covered exhaustively on RMweb over the last 20 years, so I won't repeat it all again.

 

Essentially it is a way of mixing unmodified modern RTR wheels with narrower kit wheels on the same track with smooth running for both.

 

To achieve that it is necessary to accept a few restrictions on conventional 00 RTR:

 

1. only modern 00 RTR will run (not old Tri-ang, Trix, etc.), and wheel back-to-backs may need to be checked for any failures of manufacturing quality control. The vast majority of modern 00 RTR is found to run fine out of the box.

 

2. the minimum radius is around 30" (750mm), as on most 4mm finescale layouts. Tighter radii can be used with gauge-widening, but 00-SF isn't suitable for sharp train-set curves.

 

3. 00-SF is intended for hand-built or kit-built track, it's not an alternative to commercial ready-to-use 00 track such as Peco.

 

00-SF is a variant of EM gauge and is created by the simple process of taking the existing EM gauge standards and subtracting 2mm from all relevant dimensions:

 

track gauge: 16.2mm

check gauge: 15.2mm

crossing flangeway gap: 1.0mm

 

More about all this at: https://85a.uk/00-sf/

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Siberian Snooper]

00-SF is 16.2 mm gauge with 1mm flangeways, this allows most modern RTR locos and rolling stock to run through switches and crossings, with less wheel drop at the V as the wheels are better supported. This also applies to kit built rolling stock. The track looks better because of the narrower flangeways.

 

Gordon, late of this parish, used to just reduce the crossings,  except where he was building crossovers where 16.2 was maintained. His layout thread was Eastwood Town, sorry no link.

 

 

[Harlequin]

9 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

00-SF is 16.2 mm gauge with 1mm flangeways, this allows most modern RTR locos and rolling stock to run through switches and crossings, with less wheel drop at the V as the wheels are better supported. This also applies to kit built rolling stock. The track looks better because of the narrower flangeways.

 

Gordon, late of this parish, used to just reduce the crossings,  except where he was building crossovers where 16.2 was maintained. His layout thread was Eastwood Town, sorry no link.

 

 

Eastwood Town is pinned to the top of the Layout Topics area, in memoriam, but here's the link anyway: 

 

 

Another famous OO-SF layout is Stoke Courtenay: 

 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2022 by Harlequin

[Andy Reichert]

3 hours ago, Wayne Kinney said:

Yes, Martin had already answered your question.

 

I asked if that inferred there was a separate "00" version of the spacer for the "00" version of your turnout kit. It seems logical there should be, if only for consistent labelling, but Martin didn't answer that.

 

My obviously relevant ongoing question is "what gauge are you using at the throw bar (and for the turnout ends for that matter) for the "00-SF" version of your turnout kit?"

 

Apparently (see Siberian Snooper post) the much lauded as 00-SF Gordon S layout only used 16.2 mm gauge through the common crossings. So it's not clearly defined what gauge(s) an 00-SF turnout actually is supposed to be.

 

Andy

[Enterprisingwestern]

On 05/03/2022 at 20:36, bradfordbuffer said:

50p's only work z to p4 gauges!

 

Having thought about this, (how sad never mind), depending on where you put the 50p it will work on most gauges on pointwork!

 

Mike.

[Wayne Kinney]

2 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

I asked if that inferred there was a separate "00" version of the spacer for the "00" version of your turnout kit. It seems logical there should be, if only for consistent labelling, but Martin didn't answer that.

 

My obviously relevant ongoing question is "what gauge are you using at the throw bar (and for the turnout ends for that matter) for the "00-SF" version of your turnout kit?"

 

Apparently (see Siberian Snooper post) the much lauded as 00-SF Gordon S layout only used 16.2 mm gauge through the common crossings. So it's not clearly defined what gauge(s) an 00-SF turnout actually is supposed to be.

 

On 03/03/2022 at 22:56, martin_wynne said:

EM and 00-SF switch opening = 1.75 mm min (a 20p coin can be used as a spacer).

 

Standard 00 switch opening = 2.0mm min (a 10p coin can be used as a spacer).

 

 

Martin already answered, yes 00 Gauge version has a 2mm spacer. 

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

I asked if that inferred there was a separate "00" version of the spacer for the "00" version of your turnout kit. It seems logical there should be, if only for consistent labelling, but Martin didn't answer that.

 

My obviously relevant ongoing question is "what gauge are you using at the throw bar (and for the turnout ends for that matter) for the "00-SF" version of your turnout kit?"

 

Apparently (see Siberian Snooper post) the much lauded as 00-SF Gordon S layout only used 16.2 mm gauge through the common crossings.

 

 

Hi Andy,

 

I said "Standard 00 switch opening = 2.0mm min (a 10p coin can be used as a spacer)", i.e. for 16.5mm.

 

Wayne has previously said that his "Standard 00" kits conform to the DOGA-Intermediate standard:

 

 https://doubleogauge.com/intermediate-track/

 

For single turnouts Gordon preferred to use the 00-SF standard only for the V-crossings, and transitioned to Standard 00 (16.5mm) for the switches, with 2mm opening. For diamonds, slips and complex junction formations he used 00-SF all through. Like many 00-SF users he transitioned to 16.5mm for plain track, so that ordinary plastic flexi-track could be used. In his case SMP Scaleway.

 

Wayne's 00-SF kits are 00-SF all through, and somewhere on his to-do list will be sleeper bases for 00-SF plain track.

 

 

cheers,

 

Martin. 

[hayfield]

2 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

I asked if that inferred there was a separate "00" version of the spacer for the "00" version of your turnout kit. It seems logical there should be, if only for consistent labelling, but Martin didn't answer that.

 

My obviously relevant ongoing question is "what gauge are you using at the throw bar (and for the turnout ends for that matter) for the "00-SF" version of your turnout kit?"

 

Apparently (see Siberian Snooper post) the much lauded as 00-SF Gordon S layout only used 16.2 mm gauge through the common crossings. So it's not clearly defined what gauge(s) an 00-SF turnout actually is supposed to be.

 

Andy

 

Andy

 

I believe you are correct for stand alone turnouts, however like many others building in 00SF where Gordon was building a complex of two or more turnouts and or crossings), the 00SF gauge would be maintained through the complex, then feathered out to match the flexirack it was joined to. But does it matter ?

[Andy Reichert]

For a hand laying individual no. You are responsible for your own scratch building results.

 

If you are a commercial outfit, setting correct product descriptions, customer expectations and whether you deliver them all is critical.

 

Also a product which only works in X % of the situations it's advertised for, and/or only X % of the expected performance/time  will usually entail having a large, expensive, customer support department, and losing your reputation,  even if X is 95%.

 

Andy,

Been there, done that, (Redesigned the product {fast} and saved the company)

 

 

[dasatcopthorne]

On 08/03/2022 at 12:43, whart57 said:

 

Can someone indulge this anything-but-4mm-scale modeller by explaining what OO-SF is and what the thinking behind it is?

Jeeees. No, not again!!!!!!

[dasatcopthorne]

On 08/03/2022 at 13:30, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi,

 

This has been covered exhaustively on RMweb over the last 20 years, so I won't repeat it all again.

 

Essentially it is a way of mixing unmodified modern RTR wheels with narrower kit wheels on the same track with smooth running for both.

 

To achieve that it is necessary to accept a few restrictions on conventional 00 RTR:

 

1. only modern 00 RTR will run (not old Tri-ang, Trix, etc.), and wheel back-to-backs may need to be checked for any failures of manufacturing quality control. The vast majority of modern 00 RTR is found to run fine out of the box.

 

2. the minimum radius is around 30" (750mm), as on most 4mm finescale layouts. Tighter radii can be used with gauge-widening, but 00-SF isn't suitable for sharp train-set curves.

 

3. 00-SF is intended for hand-built or kit-built track, it's not an alternative to commercial ready-to-use 00 track such as Peco.

 

00-SF is a variant of EM gauge and is created by the simple process of taking the existing EM gauge standards and subtracting 2mm from all relevant dimensions:

 

track gauge: 16.2mm

check gauge: 15.2mm

crossing flangeway gap: 1.0mm

 

More about all this at: https://85a.uk/00-sf/

 

cheers,

Martin.

 

 

Martin.

 

You won't believe how proud I am of you for being able to repeatedly state the above.

 

I really don't know how to do it.

 

 

Dave.

Edited March 10, 2022 by dasatcopthorne

[whart57]

1 hour ago, dasatcopthorne said:

 

 

Martin.

 

You won't believe how proud I am of you for being able to repeatedly state the above.

 

I really don't know how to do iy.

 

 

Dave.

OK, the difference between 12mm gauge Finescale, 12mm gauge Intermediate and 12mm gauge Triang standards have been discussed in depth over the last thirty years too. But I don't think you would get such a dismissive response were you an outsider asking. I guess being in the dominant scale blunts your sensitivity 

[whart57]

On 08/03/2022 at 13:30, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi,

 

This has been covered exhaustively on RMweb over the last 20 years, so I won't repeat it all again.

 

Essentially it is a way of mixing unmodified modern RTR wheels with narrower kit wheels on the same track with smooth running for both.

 

To achieve that it is necessary to accept a few restrictions on conventional 00 RTR:

 

1. only modern 00 RTR will run (not old Tri-ang, Trix, etc.), and wheel back-to-backs may need to be checked for any failures of manufacturing quality control. The vast majority of modern 00 RTR is found to run fine out of the box.

 

2. the minimum radius is around 30" (750mm), as on most 4mm finescale layouts. Tighter radii can be used with gauge-widening, but 00-SF isn't suitable for sharp train-set curves.

 

3. 00-SF is intended for hand-built or kit-built track, it's not an alternative to commercial ready-to-use 00 track such as Peco.

 

00-SF is a variant of EM gauge and is created by the simple process of taking the existing EM gauge standards and subtracting 2mm from all relevant dimensions:

 

track gauge: 16.2mm

check gauge: 15.2mm

crossing flangeway gap: 1.0mm

 

More about all this at: https://85a.uk/00-sf/

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Thank you Martin. A brief summary was what I was looking for 

[RichardT]

13 hours ago, whart57 said:

Thank you Martin. A brief summary was what I was looking for 

The only stupid question is the one that isn’t asked, despite how irritating that may be for those who already know everything.  There’s more Martin info on 00-SF here: https://www.85a.uk/00-sf/history.php

 

Richard T

Edited March 10, 2022 by RichardT
Spelling Martin’s name properly!

[Andy Reichert]

37 minutes ago, whart57 said:

Thank you Martin. A brief summary was what I was looking for 

 

Actually 00-SF has also been disagreed with by multiple members of RM WEB over the past 20 years. 

 

The gauge change is irrelevant. It's the serious build and running accuracy issues that are the problem.  00-SF using  RTR wheels needs one and a half times more accuracy in track and wheels than P4 does.

 

FWIW here roughly are the wheel flange running clearances from of the various "standards" and "variants" in descending order.

 

 

 

Andy,

 

 

 

 

 

[martin_wynne]

5 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

Actually 00-SF has also been disagreed with by multiple members of RM WEB over the past 20 years.

 

 

None of whom were under the slightest obligation to try it if they didn't like it.

 

On the other hand, almost without exception those who have tried 00-SF have reported being very pleased with it, and some fine 00-SF layouts have been posted on RMweb.

 

p.s. Your list fails to include the actual wheel which Roy Miller intended it for in the first place -- Romford (now Markits) wheels having a flange width of 0.7mm. Which puts it at 0.3mm clearance in your list.

 

But why you regard that figure as the defining one escapes me. The critical factor for most modellers is wheel drop at crossings, which 00-SF eliminates for kit wheels in 00, and which can be computed from the wheel width, flangeway gap, blunt nose width, rail head profile, and wheel face chamfer. Romford/Markits wheels are 2.54mm (code100) wide: http://www.markits.com/about.html

 

And many modellers simply like the appearance of the narrower flangeways, which can be appreciated without doing any calculations at all.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited March 10, 2022 by martin_wynne
typo

[hayfield]

11 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

Actually 00-SF has also been disagreed with by multiple members of RM WEB over the past 20 years. 

 

The gauge change is irrelevant. It's the serious build and running accuracy issues that are the problem.  00-SF using  RTR wheels needs one and a half times more accuracy in track and wheels than P4 does.

 

FWIW here roughly are the wheel flange running clearances from of the various "standards" and "variants" in descending order.

 

 

 

Andy,

 

 

 

 

 

 

And proved by many more that it actually works for more users than it was initially designed for.  Martin has explained (at length) it was initially designed for those who used kit built rolling stock, which would not work smoothly on existing 00 standards, however those who used modern RTR found they could benefit from better performance and better looks, without any modifications to the wheelsets.  

[Ian_H]

Seems like argument for arguments sake …… Considering the title of the forum “New range of simple to assemble 00/EM gauge pointwork kits” is this the correct forum for such discussions? Don't get me wrong, I am very interested in different points of view but this one seems to go round and round through different forums!

 

Ian

[martin_wynne]

23 minutes ago, Ian_H said:

Don't get me wrong, I am very interested in different points of view but this one seems to go round and round through different forums!

 

Hi Ian,

 

That's because one particular RMweb member (Andy Reichert) cannot see any mention of 00-SF without jumping in to find fault with it. Without ever providing a better solution to the problem of mixing 00 kit wheels and unmodified RTR wheels on the same track.

 

Most of the other detractors have at least now accepted that it works. Generally their objection is derived from a religious belief in 16.5mm, despite that dimension having no prototype significance at 4mm/ft.

 

Andy Reichert is a manufacturer of 16.5mm track, so maybe he has a different perspective: https://proto87.com

 

All forum topics drift where the contributors take them. The solution is simple -- steer a topic back on-topic by making a post which is on-topic. Preferably one requiring a response.

 

For example, here's a question for Wayne:

 

Are the new all-rail kits supplied with the vee nose ready-blunted to the prototype width (3/4" for bullhead = 0.25mm), or is the rail supplied as-machined sharp and left to the builder to blunt it? It's important because the templates assume a prototypical blunt nose, and if left sharp the nose will overlap into fresh air between the timbers. The previous cast crossings had a prototypical blunt nose, and looked all the better for it:

 

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Wayne Kinney]

39 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

For example, here's a question for Wayne:

 

Are the new all-rail kits supplied with the vee nose ready-blunted to the prototype width (3/4" for bullhead = 0.25mm), or is the rail supplied as-machined sharp and left to the builder to blunt it? It's important because the templates assume a prototypical blunt nose, and if left sharp the nose will overlap into fresh air between the timbers. The previous cast crossings had a prototypical blunt nose, and looked all the better for it:

Hi Martin,

 

Yes they are a little blunt, if they were left perfectly sharp it would break through the web of the rail and leave a 'fork' shape of only the head and foot left (as I'm sure you know, but putting the info on here for others).

 

The way the 'chairs' that clamp the V's are designed means that the Point Rail V is 'wedged' into the correct location, meaning it's not the nose of the V that determines it's end stop position, it's the 'flat' of the milled section. This guarantees correct alignment weather or not the V's were perfectly sharp or overly blunt. So yes, if I left the V perfectly sharp, it would hang out over that timber.

[whart57]

Sorry guys, I was genuinely puzzled by this OO-SF description. I thought I was pretty much up on various scale and gauge definitions from Z to Gauge 3, but it was one I'd missed. I really did not want to pick open the scabs of old arguments. We have enough of those in 3mm Scale ..........

[dasatcopthorne]

16 hours ago, whart57 said:

OK, the difference between 12mm gauge Finescale, 12mm gauge Intermediate and 12mm gauge Triang standards have been discussed in depth over the last thirty years too. But I don't think you would get such a dismissive response were you an outsider asking. I guess being in the dominant scale blunts your sensitivity 

 

How is a massage to Martin, dismissive of you??

 

Dave.

 

 

[hayfield]

6 minutes ago, whart57 said:

Sorry guys, I was genuinely puzzled by this OO-SF description. I thought I was pretty much up on various scale and gauge definitions from Z to Gauge 3, but it was one I'd missed. I really did not want to pick open the scabs of old arguments. We have enough of those in 3mm Scale ..........

 

Not your fault at all and I guess most 00 gauge modellers are in the dark about it. If Wayne called them 00 Finescale and made no mention of 00sf very few modellers would take any notice unless they had problems running their stock through, using common sense and code 100 rail for older stock.

 

Lets face it they buy a modern loco for £200 and accepting it is a finescale model running on 00 gauge track, in general it will run better on 00sf than 00 (universal) simply because the wheels are finer

[Siberian Snooper]

7 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Ian,

 

That's because one particular RMweb member (Andy Reichert) cannot see any mention of 00-SF without jumping in to find fault with it. Without ever providing a better solution to the problem of mixing 00 kit wheels and unmodified RTR wheels on the same track.

 

Most of the other detractors have at least now accepted that it works. Generally their objection is derived from a religious belief in 16.5mm, despite that dimension having no prototype significance at 4mm/ft.

 

Andy Reichert is a manufacturer of 16.5mm track, so maybe he has a different perspective: https://proto87.com

 

All forum topics drift where the contributors take them. The solution is simple -- steer a topic back on-topic by making a post which is on-topic. Preferably one requiring a response.

 

For example, here's a question for Wayne:

 

Are the new all-rail kits supplied with the vee nose ready-blunted to the prototype width (3/4" for bullhead = 0.25mm), or is the rail supplied as-machined sharp and left to the builder to blunt it? It's important because the templates assume a prototypical blunt nose, and if left sharp the nose will overlap into fresh air between the timbers. The previous cast crossings had a prototypical blunt nose, and looked all the better for it:

 

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Hi Martin,

 

Some of us, like our noses blunted to 11/16ths, at least that's what's in David Smith's book.