Do we need a current day BRMSB?

[PMP]

36 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

As for couplings , I pointed out that with NEM pockets it's easy to pull them out and fit the tension lock you standardise on, ot of a packet. You wrote this in response:

 

 

 

I think it's fair to summarise that as "it's far too much to expect Joe Public to change a plug in coupler for another one that's sold in a model shop"

 

Yet you expect the same people to adjust the back to back on all their stock, locos and coaches.

 

You may do , I might - but Peco have to work on the basis that a lot of their customers never will. So their commercial points had better be compatible with all current production RTR as it comes out of the factory

 

No that’s not a fair summation at all, that’s a distorted view to suit your agenda.
 

Most RTR customers retain T/L couplings, so they expect stock to be compatible within ranges and between ranges. I have five shops within 30 miles of me. Only one has a very limited ranges of alternative couplings that indicates how small the demand is for swapping to another type, let alone trying to match T/L’s themselves.

This is what it means.

 

 

Both these couplings and heights and shapes of them are DOGA standards  compliant. The couplings are fitted into NEM pockets at the ‘right’ point in space.
 

It really isn’t hard to understand the concept that with no defined standard for a T/L coupling, both the above couplings are perfectly satisfactory if a manufacturer wanted to to make them as such and sell them. 

Edited April 24, 2022 by PMP
Spacing

[Ravenser]

18 minutes ago, PMP said:

No that’s not a fair summation at all, that’s a distorted view to suit your agenda.
 

Most RTR customers retain T/L couplings, so they expect stock to be compatible within ranges and between ranges. I have five shops within 30 miles of me. Only one has a very limited ranges of alternative couplings that indicates how small the demand is for swapping to another type, let alone trying to match T/L’s themselves.

This is what it means.

 

 

Both these couplings and heights and shapes of them are DOGA standards  compliant. The couplings are fitted into NEM pockets at the ‘right’ point in space.
 

It really isn’t hard to understand the concept that with no defined standard for a T/L coupling, both the above couplings are perfectly satisfactory if a manufacturer wanted to to make them as such and sell them. 

 

 

I'm afraid you have not quite understood what I said, and that's led you to make statements that aren't accurate.

 

For starters, although I personally am a Kadee user I never mean - or thought I had suggested - that the substitute "Standardised coupler" was a type other than a tension/lock . You were calling for a tension-lock standard. I suggested you would standardise on one particular type of tensionlock , and simply pull out the discrepant coupling and plug in a replecement from your packet of Bachmann type X tension locks

 

The couplers in your picture are not "DOGA standards compliant" , for the simple reason that there isn't a DOGA standard for  plug-in T/L couplings.

 

There is a DOGA standard for the NEM pocket . A quick look by eye suggests that the NEM pockets are aligned on those two vehicles. 

 

For reasons best known to themselves, the maker of the Pannier has fitted the notorious Bachmann stepped tensionlock , invented to fit the misaligned pockets on their Mk1 coaches. (The factory ran out of the straight type, and Mr Chan wanted to keep the line going??)

 

The wagon sports a wierd object with no hook. Oxford Rail??

 

Just pull them both out, and reach for your packet of straight Bachmann tension locks, as sold in model shops. Plug in replacements.

 

It;s not hard. Much easier than adjusting back to backs (How many model shops these days sell a B2B gauge?)

 

I suggest the wagon object should go straight in the bin. I might put the stepped t/l in my box of discarded couplings, or bin it as well.

 

[The Johnster]

I can't identify the coupling on PMP's F. Warren 7-planker, excpet that it is NEM compliant and the NEM pocket is at (or at any rate acceptably close to) the same height as the one on the (Bachmann?) pannier.  Replacing the Pannier's Bachmann crancked coupling with a straight one would solve the problem, as would replacing whatever that thing in the 7-planker's NEM pocket is with a straight tension lock.  It's not, TTBOMK, an Oxford device, and I can only think it is one of those magazine partwork products.

 

It illustrates one of the reasons I've standardised on Bachmann tension locks on my layout. as the straight/cranked long/short combinations give a pretty good chance of providing compatible couplings made of the same material and with the same bar and hook profiles that can be mounted to a standard height.  For kits, older stock, and other situations where there is no NEM pocket provided, I use the Peco/Parkside PA34 NEM pocket mounts (these come in the packet for Parky kits).  They are made of a fairly soft plastic so can be easily trimmed or packed to get the pocket at a height from which one can insert a Bachmann tension lock of one sort or another to standardise the bar height.

 

But there are situations where matters are more awkward, especially locos and bogie stock.  On locos the NEM pockets are fixed pretty irrevocably and you have to hope that one of hte Bachmann t/l alternatives will conform to your standard, and on bogie stock there are all sorts of sprung levered pocket mountings to enable close coupling on straight track while preserving the ability to negotiate Setrack curves.  For coach kits I am fortunate in that I model ex-GW and can use the excellent Stafford Road Works 3D printed bogies, which have the NEM pockets printed in.  But Stafford Road don't do the later Collett 9' or Pressed Steel bogies, and here one has to use Hornby or Bachmann spares.

 

But not all is rosy in the garden, however as Bachmann seem to produce their couplings in batches, and one can never guarantee the one you want being available at any given time.  Best to maintain stocks, but I am adept at running out of the couplings I want when I want them.  The couplings are prone to losing their hooks, and I have yet to master whatever technique is required to replace them reliably enough for them not to fall back off again within a short time, although it looks easy enough; I'm obviously missing a trick with this!

 

 

[martin_wynne]

On 24/04/2022 at 11:42, Ravenser said:

 

The same situation exists in 7mm within Templot . At least 4 different standards and 4 different track gauges

 

Martin has expressed the opinion on here in the past that he doesn't agree with standards and standard setting, and that the existence of the NMRA is regrettable and stifling. The plethora of track standards in Templot  for both 4mm and 7mm reflects that view  (it may well be that Templot is deliberately subversive of  GOG standards in 7mm)

 

 I rather suspect he would like the number supported to be even higher in both scales...

 

(Edit : I've just seen this thread OO-MF and OO-IF from which it appears Martin Wynne has recently invented two further track standards for OO, involving two new track gauges.  He is unable to answer whether anyone is actually working to either standard, or whether any OO modeller has asked for them to be added to Templot - but now Templot supports them...  

 

Why???? 

 

Templot is now supporting 4 different track gauges for OO, and I await with sinking heart Martin's invention of track standards for OO to 16.1mm gauge and 16.6mm gauge.

 

This does rather make it look as if Martin believes that there should be as many track standards and as many different gauges as possible in each scale)

@Ravenser

 

As you have mentioned my name and Templot, perhaps I may reply.

 

Agreed standards are necessary for RTR manufacturing. It is important that one manufacturer's products are compatible with another.

 

Templot is about HAND-BUILT track. It has no relevance whatsoever for RTR manufacturing. I have explained this time and time again for over 20 years. Do you never listen?

 

When you build your own track, you can use whatever dimensions you damn well like. Templot is a tool to help you do that.

 

The RTR standards include various compromises to suit RTR manufacturing and tolerance requirements. For example the 00 standards contain sufficient gauge slop to run models round train-set curves. If you are building a finescale layout with gentle curves those compromises are a detriment to the best results and can be eliminated to advantage -- if you build you own track.

 

Templot is about hand-built TRACK. It contains nothing whatsoever about wheel standards. Even modellers who build their own track like to stick to the accepted wheel standards, so that their models and friend's models are interchangeable between their layout and other layouts.

 

I shall continue to add any pre-sets to Templot which I think may be useful to modellers who build their own track. Any more takers for H00-DN? I know of only one user, but I have no intention of removing the pre-set for that reason.

 

Templot is my hobby project. It is available free for anyone to use if they wish. Or not if they don't.

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

2 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

......

 

Agreed standards are necessary for RTR manufacturing. It is important that one manufacturer's products are compatible with another.

 

Templot is about HAND-BUILT track. It has no relevance whatsoever for RTR manufacturing. I have explained this time and time again for over 20 years. Do you never listen?

 

When you build your own track, you can use whatever dimensions you damn well like. Templot is a tool to help you do that.

 

The RTR standards include various compromises to suit RTR manufacturing and tolerance requirements. For example the 00 standards contain sufficient gauge slop to run models round train-set curves. If you are building a finescale layout with gentle curves those compromises are a detriment to the best results and can be eliminated to advantage -- if you build you own track.

 

.......

 

1. When I wrote the post in question, I was recalling someone having said in the thread that the multiplicity of standards in 4mm was evidence of confusion, chaos fragmentation and division. 

 

The nearest I can find is this post from kevinlms on 24/6 at 9:06

 

Quote

But you don't have to worry about EM or P4, both gauges have societies providing for their members needs. I can't see either of those organisations changing their ways. Their total market share, isn't going to make a huge impact on OO.

AFAIK, 7mm also has the same problem with different standards, or is it a bigger still range of standards?

 

Face it, not everyone wants to model to the same set of standards, probably because too much invested.

 

My recollection at the time - which seems to have been mistaken - was that he had specifically referenced the long list of standards supported in Templot . I then stumbled over the OO-MF thread, in which you seem to have invented two new track gauges and two additional track standards for poor old OO on the fly one slow afternoon last December.

 

I felt it advisable to say that the long list of standards supported by Templot is more related to your own belief in a rainbow array of options for track in each gauge , and doesn't actually mean that OO is divided into a multplicity of camps of squabbling factions each championing a seperate gauge and standard

 

2. Given your above comments, I trust you would agree that OO-SF standards  - and any others involving 1.0mm flangways -  are completely inappropriate for mass market ready-made points in OO, especially if applied to medium and small radius points usng Peco geometry , or even slips, where the curvature at Peco geometry is really quitre fierce.

 

However PetetheElaner reports in the DOGA Journal (quoted earlier in this thread) measuring a medium radius concrete sleeper point from Peco - a new product - 

Quote

Both seemed to have 1.0mm clearance between running rails and check/wing rails. This is consistent across all 4 check/wing rails on both turnouts.
I measured the gauge in different areas.....  the flatbottom one was between 16.4mm and 16.5mm. The difference seems slight but consistent.

 

That implies a check rail span of 14.4mm, unless the actual flangeway is a little greater than PetetheElaner was able to measure with the means available. The flangways on the bullhead large radius points also seem to be 1.0-1,1mm

 

In a RTR context, the word that come to mind is "hair-raising". I don't know where that figure of 1.0mm came from, or who put it into Peco's head . It certainly wasn't  DOGA - yes, DOGA have been asking Peco to tighten up the flangeways for some years, but  to OO Intermediate, not to those kind of figures. Personally, I wouldn't have dared to go beyond a 1.25mm flangeway for ready-made commercial points

 

And we are promised double slips and medium radius points from Peco, imminently. If done to such tight flangeways I can see this ending in tears

Edited April 25, 2022 by Ravenser

[martin_wynne]

53 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

1. When I wrote the post in question, I was recalling someone having said in the thread that the multiplicity of standards in 4mm was evidence of confusion, chaos fragmentation and division. 

 

The nearest I can find is this post from kevinlms on 24/6 at 9:06

 

 

My recollection at the time - which seems to have been mistaken - was that he had specifically referenced the long list of standards supported in Templot . I then stumbled over the OO-MF thread, in which you seem to have invented two new track gauges and two additional track standards for poor old OO on the fly one slow afternoon last December.

 

I felt it advisable to say that the long list of standards supported by Templot is more related to your own belief in a rainbow array of options for track in each gauge , and doesn't actually mean that OO is divided into a multplicity of camps of squabbling factions each championing a seperate gauge and standard

 

2. Given the above, I trust you would agree that OO-SF standards  - and any others involving 1.0mm flangways -  are completely inappropriate for mass market ready-made points in OO, especially if applied to medium and small radius points usng Peco geometry , or even slips, where the curvature at Peco geometry is really quitre fierce.

 

However PetetheElaner reports in the DOGA Journal (quoted earlieer in this thread) measuring a medium radius concrete sleeper point from Peco - a new product - 

 

That implies a check rail span of 14.4mm, unless the actual flangeway is a little greater than PetetheElaner was able to measure with the means available. The flangways on the bullhead large radius points also seem to be 1.0-1,1mm

 

In a RTR context, the word that come to mind is "hair-raising". I don't know where that figure of 1.0mm came from, or who put it into Peco's head . It certainly wasn't  DOGA - yes, DOGA have been asking Peco to tighten up the flangeways for some years, but  to OO Intermediate, not to those kind of figures. Personally, I wouldn't have dared to go beyond a 1.25mm flangeway for ready-made commercial points

 

And we are promised double slips and medium radius points from Peco, imminently. If done to such tight flangeways I can see this ending in tears

@Ravenser

 

You have yet again replied entirely in terms of RTR products.

 

The relevance of Templot to RTR manufacturers is NIL.

 

Discussion of 00-MF is at: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/169070-00-mf/

 

and at: https://85a.uk/templot/club/index.php?threads/00-mf.351/

 

Discussion of 00-IF is at: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/169070-00-mf/?do=findComment&comment=4777366

 

The above is of interest only to modellers who build their own track. If you don't do that, please move along, nothing to see here.

 

Martin.

Edited April 25, 2022 by martin_wynne
amended link

[Enterprisingwestern]

On 24/04/2022 at 08:51, kevinlms said:

Maybe, but perhaps the problem is that there is no clear guidance from modellers? If I was a new venture, thinking of manufacturing a new brand of 4mm track - reading this whole thread, would lead me to investing in something else!

 

 

 

On 24/04/2022 at 09:56, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Clear guidance from modellers is like the tail wagging the dog, and besides, assuming you infer clear guidance to mean a set of dimensions, those of us in 4mm scale can't even model to one gauge let alone one set of standards!

 

Mike.

 

On 24/04/2022 at 10:06, kevinlms said:

But you don't have to worry about EM or P4, both gauges have societies providing for their members needs. I can't see either of those organisations changing their ways. Their total market share, isn't going to make a huge impact on OO.

AFAIK, 7mm also has the same problem with different standards, or is it a bigger still range of standards?

 

Face it, not everyone wants to model to the same set of standards, probably because too much invested.

 

On 24/04/2022 at 10:13, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Whilst I agree with your comments, have you seen how many differing "standards" there are on Templot for what is allegedly OO gauge?

 

Mike.

 

Martin, It would seem it was me who first mentioned Templot, and, if you read the relevant posts, it had nothing to do with the efficacy, efficiency, correctness or whatever of Templot itself, I was merely cross referencing the original quote to refer to a set of known figures which Templot admirably supplies, please take your exasperated hat off!

 

Mike.

[martin_wynne]

9 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Martin, It would seem it was me who first mentioned Templot, and, if you read the relevant posts, it had nothing to do with the efficacy, efficiency, correctness or whatever of Templot itself, I was merely cross referencing the original quote to refer to a set of known figures which Templot admirably supplies, please take your exasperated hat off!

 

Mike.

@Enterprisingwestern

 

Hi Mike,

 

I'm not exasperated with you in any way. Folks often mention Templot and live to tell the tale. 🙂

 

My exasperation is with Ravenser, who will keep finding fault with Templot in the same breath as discussion about what this or that 00 RTR manufacturer is doing, as if the two things are related.

 

When I'm working on Templot, the actual typical user I have in mind is an EM modeller. The vast majority of 00 modellers prefer AnyRail: https://www.anyrail.com/en

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

3 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

@Enterprisingwestern

 

Hi Mike,

 

I'm not exasperated with you in any way. Folks often mention Templot and live to tell the tale. 🙂

 

My exasperation is with Ravenser, who will keep finding fault with Templot in the same breath as discussion about what this or that 00 RTR manufacturer is doing, as if the two things are related.

 

When I'm working on Templot, the actual typical user I have in mind is an EM modeller. The vast majority of 00 modellers prefer AnyRail: https://www.anyrail.com/en

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

 

Martin:

 

I'm not finding fault with Templot.

 

I'm saying that the use of 1.0mm flangeways on ready-made Peco points for the mass market , who run RTR and don't know what a B2B gauge is , is asking for trouble.

 

And we have clear reports that's what Peco have done on two recently tooled points.

 

And we have clear reports that this is resulting in momentary shorting when Hornby carriages and wagons run through them, resulting in DCC systems tripping (to which PMP responds in effect "Everything is fine, fine, fine. Move along now, nothing to see here. Stop causing trouble")

 

I ought to be the absolute target market for the code 75 concrete sleeper pointwork. Modern image modeller, wanting more British track with tighter flangeways , checks back to backs and adjusts to ensure minimum 14.4mm

 

But at 1.0mm flangeway /14.4mm check span , I'm not sure I dare buy them - because all of my stuff will be running on hairsbreath clearances throuhg the frog and some of it simply wont go 

 

(I think a clearance of 0.025mm between wheel and check rail, on each side, is going to be unworkably low. Stuff will derail. (And that's locos with a 14.45mm B2B....)

 

And if they are too fine for me - what of the 90% of OO modellers who are less vigilant than me about wheel and track standards????

 

I gather that after the last round of contacts between Peco and DOGA, Peco said they would move to finer tolerances on their pointwork as tooling fell due for renewal. Starting with some of the Code 100 range....(For the avoidance of doubt - DOGA was urging adoption of OO Intermediate standards by Peco. NOT a 1.0mm flangeway)

 

I am therefore very concerned by the implications of the very narrow flangeways on these 2 recent Peco points.  If they are applied to the basic code 100 range, there will  be mayhem 

 

I think we can agree that a Peco code 100 small radius point to OO-SF or any other very fine standard flangway, or a double slip to Peco geometry featuring 1.0mm flangeways , would not be a good idea for the mass market. Especially when the mass market tries to run RTR Pacifics and 2-8-0s through the points at speed - as they will.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Ravenser
add italics

[martin_wynne]

5 hours ago, Ravenser said:

Martin:

 

I'm not finding fault with Templot.

 

I'm saying that the use of 1.0mm flangeways on ready-made Peco points for the mass market , who run RTR and don't know what a B2B gauge is , is asking for trouble.

 

And we have clear reports that's what Peco have done on two recently tooled points.

 

And we have clear reports that this is resulting in momentary shorting when Hornby carriages and wagons run through them, resulting in DCC systems tripping (to which PMP responds in effect "Everything is fine, fine, fine. Move along now, nothing to see here. Stop causing trouble")

 

I ought to be the absolute target market for the code 75 concrete sleeper pointwork. Modern image modeller, wanting more British track with tighter flangeways , checks back to backs and adjusts to ensure minimum 14.4mm

 

But at 1.0mm flangeway /14.4mm check span , I'm not sure I dare buy them - because all of my stuff will be running on hairsbreath clearances throuhg the frog and some of it simply wont go 

 

(I think a clearance of 0.025mm between wheel and check rail, on each side, is going to be unworkably low. Stuff will derail. (And that's locos with a 14.45mm B2B....)

 

And if they are too fine for me - what of the 90% of OO modellers who are less vigilant than me about wheel and track standards????

 

I gather that after the last round of contacts between Peco and DOGA, Peco said they would move to finer tolerances on their pointwork as tooling fell due for renewal. Starting with some of the Code 100 range....(For the avoidance of doubt - DOGA was urging adoption of OO Intermediate standards by Peco. NOT a 1.0mm flangeway)

 

I am therefore very concerned by the implications of the very narrow flangeways on these 2 recent Peco points.  If they are applied to the basic code 100 range, there will  be mayhem 

 

I think we can agree that a Peco code 100 small radius point to OO-SF or any other very fine standard flangway, or a double slip to Peco geometry featuring 1.0mm flangeways , would not be a good idea for the mass market. Especially when the mass market tries to run RTR Pacifics and 2-8-0s through the points at speed - as they will.

@Ravenser

 

Hi,

 

I'm not Peco. I have no knowledge of anything Peco might or might not be doing, beyond their published statements. What puzzles me is why you think it might be relevant to me or Templot? Modellers who build their own track do not buy such Peco products.

 

Quote

I think we can agree that a Peco code 100 small radius point to 00-SF or any other very fine standard flangway, or a double slip to Peco geometry featuring 1.0mm flangeways , would

not be a good idea for the mass market.

 

If, big if, Peco are doing that at 16.5mm gauge it is most definitely NOT 00-SF.

 

That would be DOGA's dreaded DOGA-Fine standard which was a disaster at C&L, would be an even greater disaster at Peco, and which I have railed against at every opportunity I get. Forget the mass market, DOGA-Fine is an utter disaster for every part of the market, and I wish DOGA had never published the damn thing. Why they couldn't have gone instead for 00-SF in the first place is one of the great missed opportunities in the hobby. It is now 50 years since Roy Miller invented "EM minus 2" (00-SF) in the early 1970s. It would have made the obvious fine standard alongside their Intermediate RTR standard.

 

To use 1mm flangeways in 00-SF the track gauge is set at 16.2mm. This preserves the all-important 15.2mm check gauge, ensuring it is compatible with the other 00 gauge standards.

 

An even greater mystery than what goes on in the Peco boardroom, is why I find myself explaining this over and over again on RMweb? I wonder why I bother writing anything here if no-one ever reads it properly.

 

What I do know about Peco is that they are not daft, so I very much doubt that they are doing what you suggest.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited April 26, 2022 by martin_wynne
typo

[kevinlms]

35 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

@Ravenser

 

Hi,

 

I'm not Peco. I have no knowledge of anything Peco might or might not be doing, beyond their published statements.

 

 

What I do know about Peco is that they are not daft, so I very much doubt that they are doing what you suggest.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

It's probably time Peco made a statement. Has anyone actually ASKED them what they are doing? Not suggesting that it's your job Martin, but perhaps it's Andy Y's?

[Phil Parker]

55 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

It's probably time Peco made a statement. Has anyone actually ASKED them what they are doing? Not suggesting that it's your job Martin, but perhaps it's Andy Y's?

 

Sorry too busy with other work to try storming Peco and demanding they respond to a perennial discussion topic. 

[hayfield]

3 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

What I do know about Peco is that they are not daft, so I very much doubt that they are doing what you suggest.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

 

My own take on this subject is that Peco know exactly what they are doing, until recently they have kept away from niche markets and are quite happy to allow companies like SMP & C&L to serve these markets. Simply they have build up a very successful well loved brand aimed at the mass market

 

I see two exceptions, firstly the way they have worked with the EMGS, very clever in that whilst its only available from the EMGS, its clearly a Peco product

 

Secondly they are fiercely protective of their position in the UK track market, when a competitor popped their head over the parapet all of a sudden there is a true 4mm scale flexi track and a range of turnouts and crossings

 

I assume Peco will be keeping tabs on these two ranges (OK one is via the EMGS) and where there is demand they will be happy to supply

 

I doubt in the short term Peco will consider finer flangeways, if anything this could cause more issues than its worth.  This domain will be left to the niche players with the opportunities available with 3D printing

[Galagars]

I think that the real bone of contention here is about the claim that OO-SF will accept ready-to-run models. I mentioned Hornby coaches up thread with a back-to-back of 14.25 - 14.3 mm. The distance over check rails in OO-SF is 14.2 mm which allows a running clearance of only 0.05 – 0.1 mm. The prototype clearance scales to about 0.2 mm! Much OO RTR has thick flanges which are tight in a 1 mm flangeway. OO-SF can undoubtedly be made to work, but requires much more precise setting of the back-to-back measurement than RTR manufacturers seem capable of and some (many?) RTR wheels may not be suitable.

 

It is necessary to allow tolerances in the setting dimensions which does not appear to be the case in the OO-SF dimensions. Also, the OO-SF check gauge is marginally less than the DOGA Intermediate minimum. If we assume that the 0.05 mm tolerance of the 18.83 mm gauge standard is the best that is reliably achievable, we have a check gauge of 15.25 – 15.3 mm. A 1 mm flangeway has to be the absolute minimum and we need some tolerance here, another 0.05 mm. The minimum track gauge is then 15.3 mm plus 1.05 mm which equals 16.35 mm. If we decide that a tolerance of  0.05 mm is too tight to be achievable by ordinary mortals and go for 0.1 mm, the track gauge has to increase to 16.45 mm, almost back to standard OO. And this does not include an allowance for manufacturing tolerances in the track construction and back-to-back gauges!

 

Galagars

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, Galagars said:

I think that the real bone of contention here is about the claim that OO-SF will accept ready-to-run models. I mentioned Hornby coaches up thread with a back-to-back of 14.25 - 14.3 mm. The distance over check rails in OO-SF is 14.2 mm which allows a running clearance of only 0.05 – 0.1 mm. The prototype clearance scales to about 0.2 mm! Much OO RTR has thick flanges which are tight in a 1 mm flangeway. OO-SF can undoubtedly be made to work, but requires much more precise setting of the back-to-back measurement than RTR manufacturers seem capable of and some (many?) RTR wheels may not be suitable.

 

It is necessary to allow tolerances in the setting dimensions which does not appear to be the case in the OO-SF dimensions. Also, the OO-SF check gauge is marginally less than the DOGA Intermediate minimum. If we assume that the 0.05 mm tolerance of the 18.83 mm gauge standard is the best that is reliably achievable, we have a check gauge of 15.25 – 15.3 mm. A 1 mm flangeway has to be the absolute minimum and we need some tolerance here, another 0.05 mm. The minimum track gauge is then 15.3 mm plus 1.05 mm which equals 16.35 mm. If we decide that a tolerance of  0.05 mm is too tight to be achievable by ordinary mortals and go for 0.1 mm, the track gauge has to increase to 16.45 mm, almost back to standard OO. And this does not include an allowance for manufacturing tolerances in the track construction and back-to-back gauges!

 

Galagars

 

Not again!

 

We have been over all this time and time again on RMweb for more than 15 years. One more time:

 

1. 00-SF ("EM minus 2") was not designed in the first place for RTR models. It was intended for 1970s kit wheels, specifically the Romford (now Markits) wheels at 14.5mm back-to-back.

 

2. In this century it was discovered that the majority of modern RTR models run fine on 00-SF. This was a happy accident, not part of the original design. It means RTR wheels and kit wheels can be mixed on the same layout with good running from both.

 

3. A great many modellers have now built 00-SF layouts and been very happy with the results. Here is one of them:

 

 

 

 

4. No-one is under the slightest obligation to adopt 00-SF if they don't want to. If you want to run RTR models only, DOGA-Intermediate or 00-BF work fine.

 

5. The trade is slowly catching up. In addition to the gauges available from C&L, a range of easy-build pointwork kits in 00-SF is being developed by Wayne Kinney at:

 

 https://www.britishfinescale.com/

 

How 00-SF came about: https://85a.uk/00-sf/history.php

 

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

 

Martin.

 

Edited April 26, 2022 by martin_wynne
links added

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, Galagars said:

I think that the real bone of contention here is about the claim that OO-SF will accept ready-to-run models. I mentioned Hornby coaches up thread with a back-to-back of 14.25 - 14.3 mm. The distance over check rails in OO-SF is 14.2 mm which allows a running clearance of only 0.05 – 0.1 mm. The prototype clearance scales to about 0.2 mm! Much OO RTR has thick flanges which are tight in a 1 mm flangeway. OO-SF can undoubtedly be made to work, but requires much more precise setting of the back-to-back measurement than RTR manufacturers seem capable of and some (many?) RTR wheels may not be suitable.

 

It is necessary to allow tolerances in the setting dimensions which does not appear to be the case in the OO-SF dimensions. Also, the OO-SF check gauge is marginally less than the DOGA Intermediate minimum. If we assume that the 0.05 mm tolerance of the 18.83 mm gauge standard is the best that is reliably achievable, we have a check gauge of 15.25 – 15.3 mm. A 1 mm flangeway has to be the absolute minimum and we need some tolerance here, another 0.05 mm. The minimum track gauge is then 15.3 mm plus 1.05 mm which equals 16.35 mm. If we decide that a tolerance of  0.05 mm is too tight to be achievable by ordinary mortals and go for 0.1 mm, the track gauge has to increase to 16.45 mm, almost back to standard OO. And this does not include an allowance for manufacturing tolerances in the track construction and back-to-back gauges!

 

Galagars

 

Have you actually tried an 00SF turnout ?  you might be pleasantly surprised with the performance and the aesthetics 

 

Secondly the late Gordon of Eastwood Town fame had a large mainline layout and a good proportion of the stock was RTR (including some H0 American locos), faultless running was achieved.

As for back to back measurements of wheels are concerned, which ever gauge you use wheelsets must conform to the track standards. Stop blaming 00SF for the problems caused by the manufacturing companies.

 

The biggest issue is not track gauge or specification, but the inability of the trade to have one wheel standard.

[Ravenser]

14 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

@Ravenser

 

Hi,

 

I'm not Peco. I have no knowledge of anything Peco might or might not be doing, beyond their published statements. What puzzles me is why you think it might be relevant to me or Templot? Modellers who build their own track do not buy such Peco products.

 

 

If, big if, Peco are doing that at 16.5mm gauge it is most definitely NOT 00-SF.

 

That would be DOGA's dreaded DOGA-Fine standard which was a disaster at C&L, would be an even greater disaster at Peco, and which I have railed against at every opportunity I get. Forget the mass market, DOGA-Fine is an utter disaster for every part of the market, and I wish DOGA had never published the damn thing. Why they couldn't have gone instead for 00-SF in the first place is one of the great missed opportunities in the hobby. It is now 50 years since Roy Miller invented "EM minus 2" (00-SF) in the early 1970s. It would have made the obvious fine standard alongside their Intermediate RTR standard.

 

To use 1mm flangeways in 00-SF the track gauge is set at 16.2mm. This preserves the all-important 15.2mm check gauge, ensuring it is compatible with the other 00 gauge standards.

 

An even greater mystery than what goes on in the Peco boardroom, is why I find myself explaining this over and over again on RMweb? I wonder why I bother writing anything here if no-one ever reads it properly.

 

What I do know about Peco is that they are not daft, so I very much doubt that they are doing what you suggest.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

I can't forget the mass market. It's 90% of OO

 

1. As has been pointed out in the DOGA Journal , and here , several times, Peco have produced a medium raduis concrete sleeper code 75 point , with a track gauge of 16.5mm to 16.4mm, and all 4 flangeways measured at 1.0mm

 

That is what they have done. That is the product they are selling as code 75 concrete sleeper points

 

If you don't believe me, go to your local model shop, buy one and measure it  (And report the results on here)

 

Peco must have narrowed the gauge to 16.4mm at the frog, otherwise the checkrail span would be greater than every RTR model's B2B.

 

I think all this is a bad idea, and I think it will give a lot of modellers in OO a lot of trouble - meaning the product won't be a commercial success.

 

I also think that if Peco produce a bullhead double slip to their usual geometry, using 1.0mm flangways (whether to OO-SF or any other standard involving 1.0mm flangeways) a lot of current RTR will not go through it reliably. Starting with 8-coupled steam....

 

Peco are promising the imminent release of a OO bullhead double slip. Peco have been using 1.0mm flangeways on recent new tooled points . What would you expect we are going to get?

 

I would love to know who put the idea of 1.0mm flangeways for OO points into Peco's head . It certainly wasn't DOGA. Whoever it was, I don't believe they've done the hobby a service

 

2. As I keep pointing out, DOGA OO Finescale standard is merely a codification of the "C+L package" which has been around since at least 1990. At that time rewheeling of RTR stock for "finescale OO" was a given - indeed it was largely taken for granted that you would be throwing away the entire RTR chassis on a .locomotive and building your own etched brass replacement. The question was whether you fitted Romfords or Gibsons to your new chassis.

 

If you don't like it , please send your complaints to C+L and Iain Rice, who strongly advocated it in the 1990s. DOGA merely drew up a couple of datasheets describing it, so people knew what it meant.  Just as you add settings in Templot for any standard anyone is actually working to (and a few standards nobody is working to) 

 

But OO Intermediate is , and always was,  the standard for commercial track to fit RP25/110 wheels . It was even originally labelled OO Commercial track standard - until some of us pointed out that while Peco were being conpletely intransigent, BRMSB OO track actually fell just inside the envelope of the standard. 

 

So anyone who actually wanted to work to this standard no longer had to wait for a change of mind in Beer, Seaton, Devon. They could get some readily available roller gauges and build the points themselves. Come to that, it became obvious that there were an awful lot of OO layouts out there alreadyt built to such a standard.

 

We moved from "please, please, please Mr Pritchard" to "get the soldering iron out and build the stuff yourself". At that stage, some of us piinted out that "Commercial standard" isn't a sensible name for something that isn't a commercial product and which you have to build yourself. The standard was renamed "OO Intermediate"

 

Nobody in DOGA has ever suggested that the OO Finescale standard is appropriate for RTR models, or track intended for RTR

 

By the way, Graham Warburton was a strong believer in the "C+L/Gibson package" and ensured that Tamerig Group's Bath Green Park layout was built to it. That layout was on the circuit several years before DOGA codified the standard with datasheets and pointed out what C+L were actually selling

 

(I do not work to OO Finescale standard myself. I model in OO Intermediate. So the DOGA OO Finescale standard is not my pet project) 

[Ravenser]

14 hours ago, kevinlms said:

It's probably time Peco made a statement. Has anyone actually ASKED them what they are doing? Not suggesting that it's your job Martin, but perhaps it's Andy Y's?

 

 

Iain Ripo bought some points, measured them, and wrote up his findings as an article in the DOGA Journal, Spring 2021

 

He's reposted the article as a pdf in the early part of this thread.

 

Measuring the things is probably a more reliable guide than asking someone to tell you what they measure

[Ravenser]

10 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

I doubt in the short term Peco will consider finer flangeways, if anything this could cause more issues than its worth.  This domain will be left to the niche players with the opportunities available with 3D printing

 

Err Hayfield - Peco have't just considered finer flangeways. They've tooled up the concrete sleeper code 75 points and the large radius bullhead points with finer flangeways . VERY much finer flangeways , at 1.0mm

 

These points are now in m,odel shops across Britain. You can buy them , and measure the dimensions on real production examples

[martin_wynne]

15 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

I can't forget the mass market. It's 90% of OO

 

1. As has been pointed out in the DOGA Journal , and here , several times, Peco have produced a medium raduis concrete sleeper code 75 point , with a track gauge of 16.5mm to 16.4mm, and all 4 flangeways measured at 1.0mm

 

That is what they have done. That is the product they are selling as code 75 concrete sleeper points

 

If you don't believe me, go to your local model shop, buy one and measure it  (And report the results on here)

 

@Ravenser

 

Hi,

 

I don't want you to forget the mass market, if it's your interest. Why would I?

 

What I want you to do is stop assuming it has any relevance to me or to Templot -- it doesn't. What Peco do or don't do is of no interest to me or to Templot users. We build our own track, so have no need or use for Peco pointwork products.

 

Of course I believe you. I'm not going to buy a Peco turnout from my model shop or anywhere else because I don't want or need one.

 

If you are not happy with a Peco product, the people to contact about it are Peco, not me. I have no connection with Peco.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

14 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

If you don't like it , please send your complaints to C+L and Iain Rice, who strongly advocated it in the 1990s.

 

 

I doubt if the present owner of C&L or the previous one would have any idea what you are going on about. Unlike yourself I am very friendly with both and it is quite common now that Mr Reid has a chat with me about new developments he brings in at C&L. The previous owner as I reported financially could not do anything about the roller gauges, which were promoted a 00 gauge not DOGA fine. Phil not only produced new 00 gauge roller gauges to BRMSB standards, likewise a new range of common crossings again to BRMSB standards.

 

Please don't complain to Phil as he has nothing to do with this and has taken steps to readdress the issue.

[martin_wynne]

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

 

I doubt if the present owner of C&L or the previous one would have any idea what you are going on about. Unlike yourself I am very friendly with both and it is quite common now that Mr Reid has a chat with me about new developments he brings in at C&L. The previous owner as I reported financially could not do anything about the roller gauges, which were promoted a 00 gauge not DOGA fine. Phil not only produced new 00 gauge roller gauges to BRMSB standards, likewise a new range of common crossings again to BRMSB standards.

 

Please don't complain to Phil as he has nothing to do with this and has taken steps to readdress the issue.

 

Hi John,

 

I did suggest to Phil that he should take his legacy stock of DOGA-Fine roller gauges and chuck them in the bin.

 

It's doing his business no favours if folks build C&L turnouts using them, and then find that their 00 RTR models won't run through. The previous owner of C&L caused a lot of heartache and disappointment selling the damn things -- without it seems ever knowing what he was doing.

 

If anyone is perverse enough to actually want to build DOGA-Fine, gauges are available from DOGA. If they have run out, Phil could give them his remaining stock, and good riddance.

 

p.s. Wayne Kinney (who does know what he is doing) is supplying his 00 turnout kits in two versions, Standard 00 (DOGA-Intermediate) or 00-SF, and DOGA-Fine is thankfully nowhere to be seen on his web site.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited April 27, 2022 by martin_wynne
ps added

[hayfield]

14 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi John,

 

I did suggest to Phil that he should take his legacy stock of DOGA-Fine roller gauges and chuck them in the bin.

 

It's doing his business no favours if folks build C&L turnouts using them, and then find that their 00 RTR models won't run through. The previous owner of C&L caused a lot of heartache and disappointment selling the damn things -- without it seems ever knowing what he was doing.

 

If anyone is perverse enough to actually want to build DOGA-Fine, gauges are available from DOGA. If they have run out, Phil could give them his remaining stock, and good riddance.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Martin

 

As you know I have been helping Phil out for several years now at shows local to me, What I have said about the 00 gauge kits and parts he has taken on board and actioned well over a year ago

 

All his 4mm roller gauges have been updated with gaps which allow the rail to rotate in the slot, also the 00 gauge roller gauges now have 1.25 flange way spacings and one end milled flat to be used over the vee. 00 Gauge common crossings now have 1,25 mm flangeways

 

The previous owner (Peter) was left with what he inherited when buying the business, I had several conversations with him, but the financial situation was such that he felt things had to stay as they were. I never really got to know Brian that well so cannot comment why the roller gauges were made to DOGA fine standards, at a guess it was economics in that the same common crossings could be used in 2 gauges (EM & 00) 

 

I guess these older gauges will be left behind when Phil moves house, but like me he's a bit of a squirrel and likes to think they may come in useful (ballast in a wagon ?) at sometime in the future.

 

I think the title of this topic is quite right to answer the question, the trouble is there is there any body/organisation who can talk to the trade on modellers behalf ?  

[martin_wynne]

11 minutes ago, hayfield said:

I never really got to know Brian that well so cannot comment why the roller gauges were made to DOGA fine standards

 

Hi John,

 

The bigger mystery is why the DOGA-Fine standard exists in the first place for him to use?

 

Just think about it -- what possible advantage derives from 00 track on which 00 RTR models won't run? Who would want such a thing? The whole and entire purpose of 00 is to be RTR. Anyone dissatisfied with that would naturally look to EM instead.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

9 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

 

I doubt if the present owner of C&L or the previous one would have any idea what you are going on about. Unlike yourself I am very friendly with both and it is quite common now that Mr Reid has a chat with me about new developments he brings in at C&L. The previous owner as I reported financially could not do anything about the roller gauges, which were promoted a 00 gauge not DOGA fine. Phil not only produced new 00 gauge roller gauges to BRMSB standards, likewise a new range of common crossings again to BRMSB standards.

 

Please don't complain to Phil as he has nothing to do with this and has taken steps to readdress the issue.

 

 

I'm glad he has moved C+L to support what is (and to be honest always has been) the dominant track standard amongst those building their own OO track.

 

It was C+L who originally promoted the fine flangeway for OO, not DOGA - and C+L didn't tell people what they were actually buying (in terms of standards).  As I keep saying, DOGA simply drew up a formal description of what C+L had been doing for years. So please stop blaming DOGA for the existance of something that had been quite widely promoted for 10-15 years before standards datasheets were issued

 

I recall that one reason for issuing the OO Finescale datasheets was to flush out what various people's numbers and products actually were, and what went with what. As you say , C+L simply sold people gauges and crossings labelled "OO" . The fact that these roller gauges and back to back gauges were  for 1.0mm flangeways and 14.8mm B2B - and therefore to a quite different standard from BRMSB OO - was never actually mentioned anywhere. People were just told C+L's  were better and more modern

 

It was only once there was a datasheet and a formal name for the standard that people like you could work out exactly what was going on.

 

For the record, the only owner of C+L I've known personally was John Pottinger and that was because he was a senior Financial Accountant at my first company. It was a bit of a surprise to see him behind the C+L stand at one of the Chatham shows in the Old Dockyard - I didn't know he was a modeller (P4 he told me) . That must have been in the mid 90s 

Edited April 27, 2022 by Ravenser