Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                             

topic: 3780-XF or 0-SF?
author remove search highlighting
 
posted: 21 Mar 2008 23:16

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
In the file uploaded in this topic:

topic 379

I noticed that Raymond is using the 0-XF standard (31.0mm). I now believe this to be flawed, and I'm minded to remove it from Templot. I would suggest changing to 0-SF instead (31.2mm). For more about this, see:

http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/7mm/message/35046

and a lot of discussion about the current 0 gauge standards at:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=281000#p281000

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=281534#p281534

regards,

Martin.

posted: 22 Mar 2008 02:48

from:

Brian Lewis
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
I would ask you to consider leaving 0-XF in  your portfolio Martin. I certainly do not agree that 31.00 mm is, as you put it, 'flawed'.

My own 40 foot 0 gauge layout is 0-XF and I have 8 years experience in building and operating to this gauge. There are limitations - a B7 is in reality the minimum turnout that will ensure faultless operation; wheels should be of a standard similar to Slaters, but that is it - there are no more constraints.  Minimum radius curves? Using normal 32mm track provides instant gauge widening.

We should not forget that, in my estimation, there are as many folk modelling in 31.0mm as there are in Scale 7. So we can hardly dismiss it. A small matter perhaps, but 31mm track gauges are instantly available - to my knowledge nobody makes gauges for 31.2mm.

31.2mm allows for trackwork inaccuracies and also the use of wheels cast to wider profiles. Neither are very good reasons.

Regards

Brian Lewis

Carrs - - C+L Finescale.

http://www.finescale.org.uk

posted: 22 Mar 2008 03:33

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Lewis wrote:
I would ask you to consider leaving 0-XF in  your portfolio Martin. I certainly do not agree that 31.00 mm is, as you put it, 'flawed'.
Hi Brian,

Well I meant only to remove it from the standard pre-set list. Templot can be customized to any gauge or scale, 31.0mm could easily still be used and 0-XF files would still reload as 0-XF.

I'm glad you are getting good results with 31.0mm, but I think Jim Snowdon (who originally proposed the sub-32 gauges) and the Gauge 0 Guild are both now agreed that 31.2mm (0-SF) is the smallest recommended gauge, and that 31.5mm (0-MF) is a better choice for a wide mix of wheels.

The main purpose of the sub-32 gauges is to improve the performance of all existing fine-scale wheels. If you are going to say that only certain wheels can be run on your track, it would seem to make more sense to go to S7.

Can I ask what size of flangeway gap you are using? If you use 1.2mm flangeways with 31.0mm gauge, the check gauge will be only 29.8mm. With wheels at 29.2mm back-to-back that leaves only 0.6mm for the flange thickness, otherwise the flange will hit the nose of the vee. Even Slater's wheels have flanges thicker than that.

If you use 1.0mm flangeways, you have the proper 30.0mm check gauge, but the check span will be 29.0mm, and all wheels set to the Guild 29.0mm back-to-back standard will jam.

Increasing the gauge to 31.2mm with 1.2mm flangeways avoids these problems while providing equally smooth running. Slater's wheels will run just fine (and on turnouts smaller than B7 for those cramped for space), and most other fine-scale wheels will also run well if care is taken over their back-to-back settings. 31.0mm doesn't appear to offer any actual advantage over 31.2mm, it merely adds potential problems. For these reasons I think new users should be steered towards 31.2mm, and 31.0mm deprecated. As far as I know this is also now the Gauge 0 Guild policy.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 22 Mar 2008 04:46

from:

Brian Lewis
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Martin,

You illustrate the folly of a scale society making rules without  proper consultation with the manufacturers. The Guild may lay down a back to back measurement of 29.0mm, but Slaters work to 29.2mm, as do C+L with our back to back gauges. To me this only shows how out of touch the Guild Technical Committee is. But this is of little consequence seeing just how few 7mm modellers are actually GOG members - only about 1 in 5 by my reckoning.

The Flangeway gap I use? 1mm.

I would not suggest we dismiss current utterings by Jim Snowdon, but instead should recall that he made a perfect case for 31.0mm and also made it work. That the Hillingdon Club members could not work to such fine tolerances and as a result, opened up to, variously 31.2mm and even 31.5mm has no bearing on the case for sticking to 31.0mm. (But tends to prove my point that 31.2mm and 31.5mm gauges are for sloppy workers).

We will have to agree to differ on this, but you will be letting your own prejudices obscure proven facts if you sell 31.0mm short.

You can be assured that C+L Finescale will continue to champion 31.0mm as the finer scale alternative to 32mm and will support the gauge.

Regards

Brian Lewis

Carrs - - C+L Finescale.

http://www.finescale.org.uk

posted: 22 Mar 2008 06:02

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Lewis wrote:
That the Hillingdon Club members could not work to such fine tolerances and as a result, opened up to, variously 31.2mm and even 31.5mm has no bearing on the case for sticking to 31.0mm. (But tends to prove my point that 31.2mm and 31.5mm gauges are for sloppy workers).
Hi Brian,

I don't know if we have any Hillingdon Club members reading this, but I imagine they might take exception to being called sloppy workers! :)

You seem to be suggesting that had they been more careful, they could have performed the impossible and made standard G0G-fine wheels run on 31.0mm gauge. :? The reason they changed to a wider gauge was not because they were incapable of building to 31.0mm, but because they wanted to run such wheels on a club layout, and 31.0mm did not permit this.

With 1.0mm flangeways (same as S7) and a restriction to only one make of wheel, I can't see much advantage in 31.0mm over S7. Admittedly it means your stock will run on all other non-S7 0 gauge layouts. On the other hand a restriction to nothing less than B7 turnouts is hardly prototypical, and doesn't apply in S7.

p.s. I've moved this discussion to it's own topic, clear of the discussion about Raymond's layout.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 25 Mar 2008 23:12

from:

rodney_hills
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Brian Lewis wrote (snipped):
Martin,

...The Guild may lay down a back to back measurement of 29.0mm, but Slaters work to 29.2mm, as do C+L with our back to back gauges. ...

Brian,

Upon checking the cited manufacturers' websites:

http://www.slatersplastikard.com/7mm%20Products/slaters%20driving_accessories.htm

indeed documents the 29.2mm BTB for their 'O' Gauge (1:43) Locomotive Driving Wheels

http://www.finescale.org.uk/show_page.php?pid=107#i

doesn't state the actual BTB measurement for:

  7BBF7 Back-to-back gauge - 7 mm

It would perhaps be helpful if this page of yours gave more info in the way of dimensions, or referred to a seperate set of specifications.

Just a thought.

Regards,

Rodney Hills

 

posted: 26 Mar 2008 14:40

from:

Brian Lewis
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
rodney_hills wrote:
It would perhaps be helpful if this page of yours gave more info in the way of dimensions, or referred to a seperate set of specifications.

Just a thought.
and a good thought Rodney.

I will do this for all B2B gauges in the next update. Thanks.

Regards

Brian Lewis

Carrs  -  C+L Finescale.

http://www.finescale.org.uk

posted: 26 Mar 2008 22:23

from:

Richard Webster
 
Leeds - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian,

On a similar theme to Rodney's;  I saw some of your point cranks etc on the stand at the recent York Show and they looked marvellous.  However, I was rather bamboozled by the number of different parts and how they interelate.  I wonder if it would be possible for you to incorporate drawings or photographs of all the parts on the C&L website.  I think that this would help one to choose the parts required and get it right the first time, rather than having to use the exchange service which you offer

Regards,

Richard

posted: 27 Mar 2008 03:23

from:

Brian Lewis
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Richard Webster wrote:
Brian,

On a similar theme to Rodney's; I saw some of your point cranks etc on the stand at the recent York Show and they looked marvellous. However, I was rather bamboozled by the number of different parts and how they interelate. I wonder if it would be possible for you to incorporate drawings or photographs of all the parts on the C&L website. I think that this would help one to choose the parts required and get it right the first time, rather than having to use the exchange service which you offer

It is a fine idea Richard and I do acknowledge that our web site lacks pictorial input. The problem is that we have 1159 line items - photographing them would be a massive undertaking and the web site would be huge.

But would it help in this instance? It is not pictures of point rodding components you require, but the knowledge of what you need for your particular layout.  Lewis, (naturally), and Raynar Wilson published books about this facet of railway operation back in the 30's. I beleive there are reprints available. Get yourself these and they will give you a working knowledge of Point operation.

Regards

Brian Lewis

Carrs  -  C+L Finescale.

http://www.finescale.org.uk

posted: 27 Mar 2008 14:16

from:

wcampbell23
 
Hamilton, Scotland - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Brian Lewis wrote:
It is a fine idea Richard and I do acknowledge that our web site lacks pictorial input. The problem is that we have 1159 line items - photographing them would be a massive undertaking and the web site would be huge.



I think the point (ouch!) is that prospective purchasers are much more likely to buy online if an illustration of an item is provided on the website.  It does not have to be a photograph - perhaps a drawing from the development of an item could be used with little additional work.  In the case of etched components a low resolution copy ( to prevent piracy ) of the artwork could be used.

Bill Campbell.

posted: 27 Mar 2008 22:02

from:

Richard Webster
 
Leeds - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian,

Many thanks for your response and I wouldn't wish to put you to all that work.  Perhaps if all the point rodding components could be mounted on a backing, add the relevant C&L codes for identification, then photograph them all [ie 1 photograph only] for inclusion on your website.  I, for one, would certainly appreciate it.

Regards,

Richard.

Brian Lewis wrote:
Richard Webster wrote:
Brian,

On a similar theme to Rodney's; I saw some of your point cranks etc on the stand at the recent York Show and they looked marvellous. However, I was rather bamboozled by the number of different parts and how they interelate. I wonder if it would be possible for you to incorporate drawings or photographs of all the parts on the C&L website. I think that this would help one to choose the parts required and get it right the first time, rather than having to use the exchange service which you offer

It is a fine idea Richard and I do acknowledge that our web site lacks pictorial input. The problem is that we have 1159 line items - photographing them would be a massive undertaking and the web site would be huge.

But would it help in this instance? It is not pictures of point rodding components you require, but the knowledge of what you need for your particular layout.  Lewis, (naturally), and Raynar Wilson published books about this facet of railway operation back in the 30's. I beleive there are reprints available. Get yourself these and they will give you a working knowledge of Point operation.

Regards

Brian Lewis

Carrs  -  C+L Finescale.

http://www.finescale.org.uk


posted: 16 Jan 2012 01:10

from:

Terry Flynn
 
Australia

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Lewis wrote:
I would ask you to consider leaving 0-XF in  your portfolio Martin. I certainly do not agree that 31.00 mm is, as you put it, 'flawed'.

My own 40 foot 0 gauge layout is 0-XF and I have 8 years experience in building and operating to this gauge. There are limitations - a B7 is in reality the minimum turnout that will ensure faultless operation; wheels should be of a standard similar to Slaters, but that is it - there are no more constraints.  Minimum radius curves? Using normal 32mm track provides instant gauge widening.

We should not forget that, in my estimation, there are as many folk modelling in 31.0mm as there are in Scale 7. So we can hardly dismiss it. A small matter perhaps, but 31mm track gauges are instantly available - to my knowledge nobody makes gauges for 31.2mm.

31.2mm allows for trackwork inaccuracies and also the use of wheels cast to wider profiles. Neither are very good reasons.

Regards

Brian Lewis

Carrs - - C+L Finescale.

http://www.finescale.org.uk
I tend to agree with Martin that using 31.0mm track gauge is flawed for track work using GOG standard fine scale wheels. Using my spread sheet, even 31.2mm is to tight if you use wider flanged wheels made outside the UK. At 31.0mm, you need to make the clearances to tight for K crossings, and the track laying and wheel back to back accuracy is harder to achieve compared to Scale 7. The fact you have observed a B7 turnout is the minimum turnout limit confirms the results from my spread sheet you have a clearance and tolerance problem. There are many prototypes and model layouts that use 1 in 6 or smaller crossing V angles.  If you want to run a range of  0 gauge fine scale wheels from more than one manufacturer then you are better off using the AMRA fine tolerance standard,  which is correctly toleranced and allows slightly finer flange ways (1.6mm to 1.7mm) than the GOG fine scale standard. A wider range of wheels are allowed in the standard. Ther are no clearance problems as far as frog angles, and K crossing can be made using sensible tolerances. If you want to go finer I recommend using the scale 7 standard.

Terry Flynn.

The AMRA standards can be found at http://www.amra.asn.au/standards.htm

My spread sheet can be found at http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html






Templot Club > Forums > Templot talk > 0-XF or 0-SF?
about Templot Club

Templot Companion - User Guide - A-Z Index Templot Explained for beginners Please click: important information for new members and first-time visitors.
indexing link for search engines

back to top of page


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.
The small print: All material submitted to this web site is the responsibility of the respective contributor. By submitting material to this web site you acknowledge that you accept full responsibility for the material submitted. The owner of this web site is not responsible for any content displayed here other than his own contributions. The owner of this web site may edit, modify or remove any content at any time without giving notice or reason. Problems with this web site? Contact webmaster@templot.com.   This web site uses cookies: click for information.  
© 2020  

Powered by UltraBB - © 2009 Data 1 Systems