Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 10 Aug 2007 05:25 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Dear all, There has been a rather acrimonious discussion about 00-SF on the RMweb forum today in which my name has been mentioned. I thought I would write a few notes about the background to 00-SF. Please feel free to copy this to RMweb or the 00-SF group if you wish. I myself have manufactured hundreds of 00-SF turnouts and sold them to very satisfied customers. They weren't actually called "00-SF" at the time, I just called them "00 extra fine". Some were on plain copper-clad timbering. Some were on my milled copper-laminate timbers with raised chairing effect. They all worked just fine as advertised. What follows is my best recollection of events more than 30 years ago. After all this time I confess my memory is much less than perfect, so if anyone reading this knows different, please do say. I could probably find out more by rummaging through old notebooks and papers, but it would take me hours to find the right ones first!  From 1974 to 1984 trading as 85A Models I was manufacturing turnout kits and components, and pointwork to order. About 1972 Roy Miller of the EMGS had told me about the idea of "EM minus 2", i.e. 16.2mm gauge with 1.0mm flangeways. He thought it would be a good way to show 00 modellers how much better their running would be if they changed to EM, using 1.0mm flangeways, by demonstrating such running with their existing 00 stock. I'm fairly sure "EM minus 2" was Roy's own idea. Or it may have come from elsewhere in the EMGS. I am very sure it was Roy who told me about it. When I started manufacturing pointwork Roy asked me to make up a crossover in "EM minus 2" which he could have on the EM stand at shows. I made one up and I was immediately impressed with its performance. So much so that I altered my standard 00 product to 16.2mm gauge with 1.0mm flangeways. I didn't shout about the 16.2 aspect of it, knowing it would be contentious, just that it was an extra fine 00 standard which worked very well. Mention of the 16.2mm gauge was hidden in the small print.  But customers liked it and always came back for more. The narrower flangeways made it look much finer than any other 00 pointwork. At that time they were using only "scale 00" wheels -- mostly white-metal kits with Romford wheels and axles. The running of such wheels on "EM minus 2" pointwork proved to be a big improvement on the alternative BRMSB standard (00-BF) -- not surprising when you do the arithmetic. There was no thought at that time of using "EM minus 2" for RTR stock. RTR was much too coarse at the time, nearly all serious 00 modellers would re-wheel it with Romford if they used any RTR at all. When I was developing Templot I remembered "EM minus 2", so I included it in the gauge list, and gave it the name 00-SF ("00 special fine"). A few years ago Dave Smith at the Carshalton club discovered it there and asked me about it. He was having trouble getting good running on his club's new layout. Or perhaps I remembered it and steered him towards it -- the actual details should be in the Yahoo message archive. Anyway the upshot was that Dave tried it and discovered that all his modern RTR stock ran on it very well -- rather to his surprise, my surprise and indeed everyone's surprise. It seems that in the intervening 25 years RTR wheels had improved somewhat. As a result of that, and the growing interest which developed, the present 00-SF group was spun off from the Templot group and they are steaming ahead getting gauges made. Some gauges have already been delivered from the US. I'm sorry I don't have any pictures of all those 16.2mm turnouts and pointwork. It's a long time ago now. But I dare say some of it is still in use on some layouts somewhere. It does actually work very well. If you know of an old 00 layout with 85A pointwork made to order it might be worth measuring the track gauge! It was all good fun and interesting memories. Customers were satisfied. No-one got hurt. Why 00-SF has to be the subject of such acrimony on RMweb and uk.rec.models.rail is a mystery. regards to all, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 10 Aug 2007 13:22 from: Rextanka
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin, I am familiar with the discussion you mention. I think if the discussion had been couched in the terms of your posting here, reaction would have been a lot milder. I think the issue is that Callum, perhaps unintentionally, appeared to hijack a number of threads on RM web. Including, horror of horrors, one about P4. Naturally this raised a few hackles and he was encouraged to make his own thread which he did. Callum is very enthusiastic about his recent discovery of OO-SF since it seems to answer some of the problems which judging by his postings he has put a great deal of thought into. Unfortunately this enthusiasm came across as zeal. Newton's third law seems to apply especially to electronic conversations and a strong reaction ensued. I really hope he does build something because as I mentioned to you in our conversation earlier, this seems interesting to me. And I for one would be happy to answer any track making questions he has, as I'm sure would most on here. It's an interesting notion, and thanks for clarifying your experiences with this approach. best Nick |
||
|
posted: 10 Aug 2007 21:51 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Matt Ots wrote (on the 00-SF group):Can someone explain what these other 00 standards are (and where I can find details of them), which ones are well supported with track gauges etc., and crucially, why 00-SF is still better?You do realise what you are asking here? Strong men have been reduced to tears entering this minefield. There is almost nothing one man can say on the subject of 00 gauge which won't be vehemently denied by another.So with that in mind please take these comments as mine alone, others will almost certainly disagree: Broadly you have four standards to choose from (with approximate equivalents): a. 00/H0 = DOGA Coarse/Commercial = Peco b. 00-BF = BRMSB = DOGA Intermediate = NMRA H0 c. DOGA Fine d. 00-SF --------------------------------------- a. 00/H0 = DOGA Coarse/Commercial = Peco 16.5mm gauge. Flangeways 1.5mm/1.4mm Peco flangeways used to be 1.5mm and 00/H0 is so defined in Templot. I believe Peco made an unannounced change to 1.4mm flangeways at some time in recent years. With 1.4mm flangeways most modern RTR wheels will run ok, although some may be just borderline on bumping in the crossings. Finer wheels such as Romford/Markits, Alan Gibson or Ultrascale will definitely fall in the crossings with a bump, and may even derail. This is not far removed from toy track. I don't think anyone building their own track would ever consider it, unless for some reason you want to run very old RTR such as Tri-ang or Trix Twin on handbuilt track. You may hear it suggested that wheels don't bump because they run on the flanges through Peco crossings. If this happens it is extremely bad news -- it means the wheel has been lifted off the rail and will lose electrical pick-up. ------------------------------------------ b. 00-BF = BRMSB = DOGA Intermediate = NMRA H0 16.5mm gauge. 1.25mm/1.3mm flangeways This is traditional "scale 00" as defined by the BRMSB circa 1950, and also matching most H0 tracks. A large number of fine 00 layouts have been built using this standard over the years, including some of the well-known ones on the exhibition circuit today. In the early days RTR was too coarse for this. But virtually all modern RTR should run on 00-BF just fine as-is. Romford/Markits wheels are just borderline, Alan Gibson and Ultrascale wheels are likely to be bumpy on the crossings. No gauge-widening is ever needed, there is plenty of slack in the dimensions for sharp curves. -------------------------------------------- c. DOGA Fine 16.5mm gauge 1.0mm flangeways This is DOGA's answer to the problem of improved running for wheels such as Alan Gibson and Ultrascale. The huge disadvantage of this standard is that it requires the wheels to have a wider than normal back-to-back dimension. All wheels using DOGA Fine track have to be adjusted to the DOGA Fine 14.8mm back-to-back gauge. And having been so modified, such wheels are unlikely to run well, or won't run at all, on any of the other 00 standards. This is not a standard to use if you want to run RTR straight out of the box, or interchange your rolling stock with friends' layouts not using this standard. Nor can you mix this standard with any other on the same layout. So no using Peco turnouts in the fiddle yard. All the track on your layout must be to this standard before you can run the first train. It does mean however that the 16.5mm gauge matches all available flexi-track. Although this may not be suitable on very sharp curves where some gauge widening up to say 16.8mm may be needed for long-wheelbase locomotives. ------------------------------------------ d. 00-SF 16.2mm gauge. 1.0mm flangeways (Also known as "EM minus 2") This alternative to DOGA Fine uses a reduced track gauge to avoid the need for wheels to be modified. Romford/Markits, Alan Gibson and Ultrascale wheels will all run extremely well exactly as supplied. Reports suggest that virtually all modern RTR models also run well on 00-SF exactly as supplied. This will certainly be the case if the wheels comply with the NMRA H0 standard. Most RTR manufacturers' published dimensions correspond to this. However you are relying on their quality-control and you may find an odd wheelset which needs adjustment, or to be returned for replacement. For 00-SF, wheels need a back-to-back dimension of at least 14.3mm to be sure of running well. And a BEF dimension not greater than 15.2mm. With an effective flange thickness of 0.7mm that means a maximum back-to-back of 14.5mm. The NMRA standard is 14.4mm. The NMRA RP25/110 flange thickness is 0.8mm max which easily clears a 1.0mm flangeway, as for DOGA Fine. Romford/Markits and Alan Gibson wheels have thinner flanges, corresponding to RP25/100 and RP25/88 respectively. The reduced 16.2mm track gauge may or may not be an issue. For very sharp curves you may need gauge-widening up to 16.5mm, so flexi-track can be used normally. For gentler curves and straight plain track you can either use flexi-track, with an adjustment where it joins pointwork (hardly noticeable except by those who are determined to notice it! ).Or you can handbuild 16.2mm plain track. This is the best option for a small fine-scale layout because you can correctly model the 60ft (or other) rail lengths and closed-up timbering at the rail joints. It's a lot of work on a very large layout of course. However, because you are not changing the wheels, the layout remains fully interchangeable with 00-BF and Peco, and you can mix the different standards on the same layout. Handbuilt 00-SF at the front, 16.5mm flexi round the ends, Peco turnouts or existing 00-BF turnouts in the fiddle yard at the back. And if you already have a layout in 00-BF or Peco, you can convert it to 00-SF one turnout at a time. Apart from improved running, a big advantage of both DOGA Fine and 00-SF is the much improved appearance of the track with narrower 1.0mm flangeways. As can be seen in the diagram on the 00-SF group's front page, and in the diagrams at http://00-sf.org.uk . ------------------------------------ As for a personal recommendation, I think your choice is between 00-BF (DOGA Intermediate) and 00-SF. Use 00-BF if you don't even want to think about wheels and don't mind the appearance of the wider flangeways or the possibility of a slight bump with Alan Gibson and Ultrascale wheels. Gauges for 00-BF are available from DOGA or NMRA. Use 00-SF if you want the best appearance and smoothest running, but are prepared to check wheels and possibly replace any rogue wheelsets if you are unlucky. Gauges for 00-SF are, or soon will be, available via the 00-SF group thanks to the valuable efforts of members. (The check gauge tool for 00-SF is interchangeable with the check gauge for 00-BF.) If I was starting a 00 layout I would certainly choose 00-SF. ----------------------------------------- If anyone wishes to copy all this to RMweb or elsewhere please feel free. But it's your job to put out the resulting brush fire, not mine! But please copy all or none.regards, Martin. ------------------------- http://www.templot.com |
||
|
posted: 10 Aug 2007 23:16 from: Jim Guthrie
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
If anyone wishes to copy all this to RMweb or elsewhere please feel free. But it's your job to put out the resulting brush fire, not mine!Martin, You may have noticed that they have locked the thread so it would probably start WW3 if any of us posted your message :-) Almost reminds you of the great P4 wars of long ago :-) Jim. |
||
|
posted: 11 Aug 2007 02:33 from: Rextanka
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I just ordered two pairs of 00-SF gauges from Russ, he had one pair in stock and will be running another small batch over the next few weeks, so now is a good time to order gauges if you have an interest in this. Best Nick |
||
|
posted: 11 Aug 2007 03:55 from: rodney_hills
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Rextanka wrote: I just ordered two pairs of 00-SF gauges from Russ, he had one pair in stock and will be running another small batch over the next few weeks, so now is a good time to order gauges if you have an interest in this.Hello Rextanka/Nick Could I gently persuade you to share useful info like this with the 00-SFers at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/00-SF ? You seem to be a very recently-joined member but you haven't posted anything there yet. Regards, Rodney Hills |
||
|
posted: 11 Aug 2007 16:05 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Jim Guthrie wrote: You may have noticed that they have locked the thread so it would probably start WW3 if any of us posted your message :-)Hi Jim, For what it's worth I think Callum has been very badly treated on RMweb. He did as asked and started a new topic for the purpose of discussing his enthusiasm for 00-SF. It's now been closed down on him for no plausible reason. Almost reminds you of the great P4 wars of long ago :-)Yes. Pistols at dawn again. What's so silly is there is no need for a war at all. 00-SF has no relevance whatsoever in the campaign to get Peco to make better-looking RTL 00 track. That's a completely different issue -- 00-SF is purely for folks who build their own track rather than buying it. I've made this point several times but it seems to fall on deaf ears. With improving RTR models the old sharp distinction in the 4mm hobby between finescale and RTR -- build or buy -- has largely disappeared. But not for track. There the distinction remains and I don't think it will ever be bridged. If you build your own track you can have it in infinite variety of sizes and radii, on flowing curves, closely fitting to your space, matching any prototype formation you can find. If you buy it you are always going to be limited to a small selection of snap-together pieces. Even if Peco produce a perfect bullhead track system for 00, you still won't be able to have a 1:7.5 crossover on 11 chains radius with extended check rails and NER-style switches. Callum, if you are reading this, you are welcome to discuss 00-SF here. You can post your track plans and layout progress pictures here just the same as on RMweb. I'm running this forum and you have my word that no-one will be allowed to make fun of you here. Not that I imagine for a moment that anyone here ever would -- we are a very friendly club of Templot users. Best wishes with your 00-SF layout project -- let us know how you get on. Bear in mind that I know that 00-SF works so you don't need to convince us on that score! What would be very useful would be to tell us how you get on with individual RTR models running on 00-SF. You said you have made your own 00-SF gauge tools on your lathe, so you probably have micrometers and calipers. It would be very good to know how consistent are wheel back-to-back dimensions on individual models, and how they compare with the manufacturer's published figures.If you can make a BEF gauge and report your findings that would be especially useful. BEF (Back to Effective Flange) is measured from the back of one wheel to the front of the flange on the other wheel. The gauge needs to be matched to the rail head profile where it fits against the flange -- the gauging point is just below the top corner radius on the rail head. To work reliably with 00-SF, the wheels need to comply with the following dimensions: Back to Back: not less than 14.3mm or 0.563". BEF: not more than 15.2mm or 0.598". If you are a member of the 00-SF Yahoo group I know the members there would also be very interested in this information. When you build your 00-SF crossings (frogs), remember to reproduce the rail head corner radius on the nose of the vee. It also helps if the top of the nose is taken down a couple of thou below the wing rails. This allows for the wheel coning as they roll off the wing rail onto the nose. If you are careful in this way you can get silky smooth running through 00-SF crossings. Been there, done that, got the 00-SF T-shirt! For the best appearance of the crossings, blunt off the tip of the vee in accordance with prototype practice, as shown on the Templot templates. This makes a noticeable improvement in realism -- at least to anyone familiar with track it does. You can do this with 00-SF, but not with 00-BF which requires knife-edge sharp vees to be reliable -- and they don't look good. The prototype vees are 3/4" wide at the tip. For 4mm scale that's 0.25 mm or 10 thou -- quite noticeable. But if you are using Alan Gibson wheels don't go any wider than that. (On the GWR and BR(W) the blunt nose is 11/16" = 9 thou.) regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 13 Aug 2007 07:12 from: Trevor Schofield click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Rextanka wrote: I just ordered two pairs of 00-SF gauges from Russ, he had one pair in stock and will be running another small batch over the next few weeks, so now is a good time to order gauges if you have an interest in this.I've just picked up on the 00-SF thread and it sounds very interesting since I am about to retire and wanted to start playing trains again. I'm also a neophyte in this apparent minefield and have tried building some track in 00 16.5mm with the Peco gauge. I was banished to the colonies (Australia NSW) many years ago so am a bit divorced from the goings on back home. The Templot forum seems to be great place for keeping in touch with the British character traits -something I really miss. I would like to get hold of a couple of 00-SF gauges too. Who is Russ and how do I contact him? Also would like to ask what is the best rail to use for 00-SF. So far I've just ripped the plastic things off Peco code100, since that is all I can get locally here in the bush ( weather's good though and the beaches are beautiful). My planned track will have some tight curves down to what Peco call second radius- is this a problem for 00-SF? Trev |
||
|
posted: 13 Aug 2007 08:57 from: Rextanka
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Trev, my understanding of 00-SF is that you narrow the gauge slightly on your turnouts and close up the check rail gap slightly, these mods help to provide reliable running on switches with finer scale wheels. I've not built any yet so stay tuned for any pros or cons I find. The following is based on my understanding of the thing, it may or may not be factually correct. Martin posted a very comprehensive description of the whys and wherefores of the various approaches of 00 just above here. The gauges can be had from Russ at the following email address: rsmodelmaker@innercite.com I think the going rate is $12USD a pair plus shipping. Russ takes PayPal for payment so it's all straightforward. You only really need the gauges for turnouts as I understand it, you can use flextrack for the rest. One thing that would be handy too might be a 40mm x 10mm x 1mm shim for spacing check rails. You can get this particular item from EMGS or elsewhere (00-SF is also referred to as EM-2: i.e. the same gauge as EM minus 2mm). Joining EMGS is highly recommended, the manual is worth the membership fee, and they are an excellent group. There's a Yahoo mailing list for 00-SF. It's at 00-SF@yahoogroups.com, the archives are searchable without needing to be a member. It's probably worth joining if you are doing work to this gauge, but have a read up first and decide if it's for you. Another forum worth checking out is RMWeb (http://www.rmweb.co.uk). It should be said that there is not much sympathy there for this particular scale/gauge combo, based on recent discussions, but some discussions do get out of hand there, particularly in general or their "wheeltappers" sections. I have found the layouts, help and workbench sections to be a great source of info and also a good source of help. Hope this helps getting you going. Post here if you have track building questions, this is a friendly place Best Nick |
||
|
posted: 14 Aug 2007 03:24 from: Brian Tulley
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Trevor Schofield wrote:I would like to get hold of a couple of 00-SF gauges too. Who is Russ and how do I contact him? Also would like to ask what is the best rail to use for 00-SF. So far I've just ripped the plastic things off Peco code100, since that is all I can get locally here in the bush (weather's good though and the beaches are beautiful). My planned track will have some tight curves down to what Peco call second radius- is this a problem for 00-SF?Hi Trev, The best place to start would be the 00-SF Group forum: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/00-SF In reply to your specific questions: 1. For information on how to order 00-SF Roller Track Gauges from Russ Simpson see the Files section of the 00-SF Forum. 2. Insofar as what rail to use, I would suggest C&L Code 75 Bullhead Rail if this is suitable for your chosen location/era etc. The reason I suggest this is because the rail slots in Russ's Track Gauge and also the Check Rail Gauge to be available shortly (I'm arranging the manufacture of a batch at the moment) are suited to this size of rail. 3. I'm not familiar with the radius of Peco 2nd radius curves; in general 00-SF follows EM guidelines with regard to minimum radius (I'd say around 36" minimum radius). However this would very much depend on what locos you are using; 0-4-0 or 0-6-0 locos will obviously be a lot more tolerant than large mainline locos! Using gauge widening techniques during tracklaying will also help (e.g. using a triangular 3-point track gauge - I'm working on producing this at the moment). To be safe you can always make a short section of track at minimum radius as a test track to see if it works ok (please let us know how you get on). 4. Personally I favour using 16.2mm gauge throughout, and not just for the turnouts. Mixing 16.2mm with 16.5mm just doesn't seem right to me somehow (though using 16.5mm in storage yards etc. makes sense, if only to avoid having to make all that trackwork!). Best Regards, Brian. |
||
|
posted: 14 Aug 2007 13:50 from: Rob Lees
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Trevor Schofield wrote: Rextanka wrote:I just ordered two pairs of 00-SF gauges from Russ, he had one pair in stock and will be running another small batch over the next few weeks, so now is a good time to order gauges if you have an interest in this.I've just picked up on the 00-SF thread and it sounds very interesting since I am about to retire and wanted to start playing trains again. I'm also a neophyte in this apparent minefield and have tried building some track in 00 16.5mm with the Peco gauge. I was banished to the colonies (Australia NSW) many years ago so am a bit divorced from the goings on back home. The Templot forum seems to be great place for keeping in touch with the British character traits -something I really miss. If you happen to be the Trevor Schofield that lives in Port Macquarie N S W I have moved up that way just recently. I may be able to help you with track building, using Templot and where to get most of the materials needed in Australia. Rob Lees BRMA Membership Secretary |
||
|
posted: 14 Aug 2007 16:11 from: rodney_hills
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Brian Tulley wrote: Trevor Schofield wrote:Trevor, Further to infos provided by Brian, above.... Peco 2nd radius setrack curves are 17.1/4" (438mm) and are generally considered the minimum radius that should be used for modern RTR stock (the packaging of much of it states that it should not be used on radius R1, 14.5/8", 371mm). Measuring the Track Gauge (TG) of a sample of this R2 setrack gives a figure of around 16.83mm (aside: P4 minus 2mm !) which gauge widening obviously allows most proprietary RTR to cope. Whether you consider that as TG 00-16.5 (DOGA-any, 00-BF BRMSB, etc) widened by 0.33mm or as TG 00-16.2 (00-SF) widened by 0.63mm is pretty irrelevant. The point is that the aforementioned RTR stock will get round it. Also, Messrs Peco's machinery will produce a far more accurate 17.1/4" radius curve that you are likely to be able to, let alone with a consistent gauge-widening. Peco straight setrack is around 16.53mm TG. Peco code 100 flexi-track is around 16.63mm TG, when straight! As per: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/00-SF/message/261 00-SF (16.2mm TG), as such, only really kicks in when you consider point and crossing work (except for handbuilt straight or very gently curved track). And then YOU have to match the sort of curved radius parts that you go for in your pointwork to the type of rolling stock you wish to send through it, just like the prototype. As Brian also remarked, you usually have to be thinking of the equivalent of 3' radius , although prototype pointwork isn't built to a fixed radius as such - I recollect that Martin Wynne (?) has a good picture somewhere of the contrast between 'typical model railway points' and models of the real thing. Regarding your choice of rail section, yes, you could use code 100 FB rail section, but, even with 4-milly sleepers/spacing rather than H0 sleepers, it's going to look awfully heavy-sectioned (us oldies recollect Gem and Farish '00-flexitrack' which did look better than Peco). Also, as Brian's pointed out, code 100 railhead won't fit the models of Gauges that he's getting produced. Having only done measurements (no actual construction so far) I'd venture to suggest that other BH rail (eg Scaleway as supplied in their RTR 00-16.5 flexi-track) looks to be almost exactly the same railhead width as the C&L BH rail. I did also look into suitable FB rail a while ago, looks like code 82 or 83 (C&L list code 82, steel or N/S, BS110A section) railhead is also the right size for our Gauges, but I don't expect to get by hands on any till Scaleforum at the end of September to check. Are you in Australia? Terry Flynn of NSW, Australia, a member of 00-SF Group, builds finescale H0 track using code 70 & code 55 FB rail, see his: http://www.angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html He might be able to advise on local availability of various rail sections. In conclusion, please remember that 00-SF is not a magic way of overcoming spatial constraints. 00-SF's special attraction is that you can MIX 'trainset' and 'fine-scale' on different parts of the same interconnected layout and do through running of most modern RTR '00-gauge' vehicles which need no mods. You can also start with eg Peco large radius points in visible areas and, by careful planning, make provision for staged replacement of these by handbuilt formations that look and run better. This approach contrasts with the usually modellism of 'stick the track firmly down for ever'. Real 'permanent way' isn't that permanent either! The following two postings expand on this approach: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/00-SF/message/16 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/00-SF/message/254 I strongly encourage you, if you wish to continue with this topic, to move over to Yahoo [00-SF]. Other Templot Group members have been known to get a little narked if there's too much 00-SF-ery cluttering up this wide-ranging and all-scales group. To this end, and to share infos with [00-SF] members, I have cross-posted this posting of mine to [00-SF]. Regards, Rodney Hills |
||
|
posted: 21 Dec 2011 22:47 from: Les G click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
rodney_hills wrote:14 August 2007:I strongly encourage you, if you wish to continue with this topic, to move over to Yahoo [00-SF]. Other Templot Group members have been known to get a little narked if there's too much 00-SF-ery cluttering up this wide-ranging and all-scales group. To this end, and to share infos with [00-SF] members, I have cross-posted this posting of mine to [00-SF]. Regards, Rodney Hills But Martin had written earlier, 11 August 2007: Callum, if you are reading this, you are welcome to discuss 00-SF here. You can post your track plans and layout progress pictures here just the same as on RMweb. I'm running this forum and you have my word that no-one will be allowed to make fun of you here. Not that I imagine for a moment that anyone here ever would -- we are a very friendly club of Templot users. I find the 14 Aug posting curious, I have found no snide remark anywhere in this topic. So if there were any, Martin has kept his word to Callum, and kept it clean. How sad it is that by his remark, Rodney Hills appears to have stifled debate on Templot, about a legitimate modelling technique with useful potential. Hopefully, there will by now be some practical experience for 00-SF builders to share here. Let us hope that they feel able to do so (hopefully, without triggering the resurrection of any previous acrimony) Regards to all, Les G |
||
|
posted: 21 Dec 2011 23:10 from: rodney_hills
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Les, That was in 2007. There were some problems then. Those interested in 00-SF will these days (late 2011) find info on all of RMweb, Templot and the 00-SF Yahoo group. Rodney Hills |
||
|
posted: 22 Dec 2011 01:08 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Les, Four years ago things did get a bit heated. Despite the fact that the 16.5mm dimension is prototypically meaningless at 4mm/ft scale, several 00 modellers got very upset at any suggestion of using a different track gauge for 00. And despite the fact that 16.2mm gauge had been known and used by a few modellers for over 30 years. Since that time there have been several topics on RMweb and other web forums where modellers have demonstrated excellent results with 00-SF handbuilt track and modern RTR stock, so things have now sensibly quietened down. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 22 Dec 2011 05:56 from: LSWRArt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi group and a very Happy christmas to you all. Is there a similar summary of the various 0 gauge standards to the info Martin so kindly provided for 00. I am well aware of GOG-FS and GOG-course and S7, but when I started Templot I also find 0-XF, 0-SF and 0-MF as well as several other standards in the list. I had assumed I would continue to use GOG-F, so are the others there mainly for historical reasons? |
||
|
posted: 22 Dec 2011 07:56 from: rodney_hills
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
LSWRArt, Merry Christmas No. Have a look at 0 standards here: topic 1394 and here: topic 1503 Also: If you can get at Model Railway Journal No. 99 there's an article on gauge-narrowing in 0 gauge pointwork. Regards, Rodney Hills |
||
|
posted: 22 Dec 2011 08:36 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
LSWRArt wrote: I had assumed I would continue to use GOG-F, so are the others there mainly for historical reasons?Hi Art, GOG-F is the historical one, with enough gauge slop for sharp train set curves -- 32.0mm gauge 1.75mm flangeway gap. The same situation has arisen in 0 gauge as in 00 gauge -- manufacturers are now producing finer wheels which are technically too narrow for the historical track standards, and modellers have tended to move away from the sharpest curves. So several new track standards have arisen to get improved running and appearance, in addition to the S7 exact scale option. The recommended check gauge with the current "industry standard" wheelset is 30.0mm. At 29.2mm back-to-back that allows an effective flange thickness up to 0.8mm. For older thicker flanges up to 1.2mm thick the back-to-back can be reduced to 28.8mm minimum (using 0-MF 31.5mm track gauge). So without any gauge widening: 0-MF 31.5mm track gauge, 1.5mm flangeway gap (all current wheels) 0-SF 31.2mm track gauge, 1.2mm flangeway gap (Slater's-type wheels only) 0-XF 31.0mm track gauge, 1.0mm flangeway gap (Slater's-type wheels only), not recommended. S7, S7 wheels only. Generally 0-MF at 31.5mm track gauge is now the preferred option to give good support through V-crossings and still accept a wide range of wheels and reasonable radii. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 22 Dec 2011 10:34 from: LSWRArt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Rodney and Martin That clarifies the situation and I will modify the track plan I am working on to 0-MF. It will look better and should give better running. Minimum radius will be 1200mm, so hopefully that will be OK Regards, Arthur |
||
|
posted: 22 Dec 2011 10:50 from: PeterD
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Arthur, I have just converted my layout to 00-SF. Martin's Templot function works really well  .A word of caution though. I thought that if I started with rebuilding the turnouts etc first, before the plain track, it would work well. I got in a dreadful muddle with the geometry of the layout changing and had to start again. The best approach is to start from left to right and make the minor adjustments to the template lengths/curving etc. This worked really well and I completed the necessary adjustments quickly without distorting the original track plan. Sorry if I am teaching you to suck eggs but I thought it worthwhile to add these comments for others too. Best wishes Peter |
||
| Please read this important note about copyright: Unless stated otherwise, all the files submitted to this web site are copyright and the property of the respective contributor. You are welcome to use them for your own personal non-commercial purposes, and in your messages on this web site. If you want to publish any of this material elsewhere or use it commercially, you must first obtain the owner's permission to do so. |