A variation on 00 Finescale

[polybear]

Hi All,

I posted this on RMWeb a few days ago but thought it might be of interest here too:

I was fortunate enough to spend last weekend at Missenden Abbey, learning track making techniques from Norman Solomon.
Now Little Bytham (Tony Wright's layout) has always intrigued me because it caters for both kit built and RTR wheels without any signs of compromise when it comes to running qualities (especially wheel drop at the crossings) - something that I've always understood should be impossible without adopting 00 Finescale track standards (= 1.0mm Crossing Flangeway & Check Rail Gap) AND a minimum 14.8mm wheel back to back. However, I can never recall Tony mentioning having to adjust B2B's on RTR Locos etc. when running them.

So I thought I'd take the opportunity to ask Norman just what the secret is.....

It seems that the track has been laid to "sort of" 00 Finescale standards in that the Crossing Flangeway is to the usual 1.0mm dimension, but the Check Rail Gap is actually 1.5mm** - which is both larger than the 00 Finescale standard (1.0mm) but also the 00 Intermediate standard of 1.2mm as well.

(**Norman simply uses the thickness of C&L thick plastic sleepers to set the gap).

So now I know.....

Brian

 

[Phil O]

Hi Brian,

I must have seen you last weekend, without realizing it. I attended his last track-laying talk and the cutting of the cake, to celebrate his retirement.

 

[Martin Wynne]

It seems that the track has been laid to "sort of" 00 Finescale standards in that the Crossing Flangeway is to the usual 1.0mm dimension, but the Check Rail Gap is actually 1.5mm** - which is both larger than the 00 Finescale standard (1.0mm) but also the 00 Intermediate standard of 1.2mm as well.

@polybear

hi brian,

if the check rail gap differs from the crossing flangeway gap it is impossible to build complex formations such as tandem turnouts, scissors crossovers etc.

with 16.5mm track gauge and 1.5mm check rail gap, the check gauge is 15.0mm.

for most 00 standards it would be 15.2mm. this is the most important dimension.

at 15.0mm and RTR wheels (having 0.8mm thick flanges) the maximum back-to-back for guaranteed reliable running is 14.2mm. many RTR wheels will comply with this. some don't, and the result is possible flange contact with the vee nose. if the nose is nicely rounded that probably won't be noticed, but the running won't be as smooth as it could be with proper matched dimensions.

(**Norman simply uses the thickness of C&L thick plastic sleepers to set the gap).

i won't be adding any of this stuff to templot.

someone who uses a spacer to set check rails instead of a check gauge tool, or fails to specify what check gauge dimension they are working to, is not on the same page as me.

for anyone who wants to build properly dimensioned railway track for 00 models i recommend any of these below, which are available in templot and can be built in plug track as easily as any other because no gauge tools are needed.

these will accept a mix of kit wheels and RTR wheels. as you go down this list, the running quality of kit wheels decreases, but there is more tolerance on varying RTR back-to-backs:

00-SF

00-MF

00-IF

00-BF if only RTR wheels are used.

for all of those the check gauge is 15.2mm, and check gauge tools for the purpose are available from C&L and DCC Concepts. (not needed for plug track.)

all these can be mixed on the same layout because the check gauge for all them is the same - 15.2mm.

it would be a useful idea to to use a lower standard for a fiddle yard than for scenic areas.

did i mention the importance of check gauge? if someone tells you about their track standards, ask them what check gauge they are using.

and with that bee in my bonnet, i must stop typing because i've reached my limit for an hour or two.

martin.

 

[AndyB]

I could have warned him

 

[Phil G]

Hi Martin,
I have been thinking about creating my own custom gauge which I know Templot supports. however I don't want to get that bee back in your bonnet
My thinking and please correct me if I have this all wrong.
is to take the EMSF standard and move the width out from18 mm to 18.5 mm as well as the wheel B to B by the same 0.5 mm whilst still keeping the check rail clearances as 0.8mm so it would be EMSF check gauge plus 0.5 mm.

Hopefully resulting in something quite close to S4 but still able to use 00SF/EM /EMSF wheel profiles, and hopefully not having to compensate everything to ensure the smaller flanges of S4 will work without regular derailments.
In your opinion is that going to work? Or just a waste of time? All you have to say is Ok, or wrong?
cheers
Phil

 

[Stephen Freeman]

IMHO outside cylinder locos will probably be a bit more challenging to say the least. P4 isn't just about the gauge.

 

[Phil G]

IMHO outside cylinder locos will probably be a bit more challenging to say the least. P4 isn't just about the gauge.

Its not about modelling skill as such, its more about cost reduction. I have far too much stock to change it all to S4 standards. Also I don't really want to compensate all my wagons, as there are a few hundred of them now> guess I could but it would take far to long
cheers
Phil,

 

[Martin Wynne]

Hi Martin,
I have been thinking about creating my own custom gauge which I know Templot supports. however I don't want to get that bee back in your bonnet
My thinking and please correct me if I have this all wrong.
is to take the EMSF standard and move the width out from18 mm to 18.5 mm as well as the wheel B to B by the same 0.5 mm whilst still keeping the check rail clearances as 0.8mm so it would be EMSF check gauge plus 0.5 mm.

Hopefully resulting in something quite close to S4 but still able to use 00SF/EM /EMSF wheel profiles, and hopefully not having to compensate everything to ensure the smaller flanges of S4 will work without regular derailments.
In your opinion is that going to work? Or just a waste of time? All you have to say is Ok, or wrong?
cheers
Phil

@Phil G

Hi Phil,

Why stop at 18.5mm? See existing gauge EM4 (also known as EEM). 18.8mm track gauge with 0.8mm flangeway. Check gauge 18.0mm.

It works with EMGS/Alan Gibson/Ultrascale profile kit wheels, back-to-back 17.4mm. But not with P4-profile wheels.

As Stephen says, you will have difficulty fitting the wheels within scale-width models.

My opinion is that it's a daft idea -- lots of extra difficulty for minimal improvement in appearance, and non-standard models which won't run on any other layout. EM-SF makes far more sense. But it's not my railway, it's yours.

If you do go for 18.5mm, please, please, please -- give it its own name. Don't post anywhere saying you model EM-SF but with widened dimensions, which is very unfair to beginners trying to make sense of it all. 18.5mm track gauge is not EM-SF.

Folks who say they model P4, and then mention that they use a different dimension for this or that, make me see red. That means it is not P4. It's so unfair to beginners.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Phil O]

Phil,

With the slightly wider wheels and pushing the gauge out will reduce the space available for the motion and maintain a scale width loco. One of the reasons I stick with EM.

 

[Stephen Freeman]

Its not about modelling skill as such, its more about cost reduction. I have far too much stock to change it all to S4 standards. Also I don't really want to compensate all my wagons, as there are a few hundred of them now> guess I could but it would take far to long
cheers
Phil,

Why compensate rolling stock? If track is good no real need except for certain vehicles such as 6 wheel syphons but they benefit from a compensated Cleminson arrangement anyway. Compensation for locos on the other hand in any scale/gauge is a good thing as it helps to keep the wheels in contact with the rail.

 

[Phil G]

Hi Martin,
firstly thanks for your thoughts. much appreciated.
The simple answer is became I was not were what EEM was, now you highlight it that's a much better option.
I am not a member of a club its 100% a personal project so non of these comments about non compatibility really apply.
I am not bothered by needing to do any work on the rolling stock. What I am trying to avoid is replacing 00/EM wheels because for 30 + years I have been slowly building up my stocks.
Having said all that you have given me something to think about, I may still stay with EMSF.
cheers
Phil,

 

[Rob Manchester]

Hi Phil,
Don't bother with anything like your are thinking of. There is always something that comes back to bite you if you try - either that or you have to be very lucky. The gauges/dimensions that are in Templot are there because they are proven to work and I suspect we don't really need any more..

I am an EM-SF fan. I like the way stock made to this standard looks and runs. When I want simplicity or for industrial track plans I go for OO-SF so that RTR wheels will work fine but I have the option of swapping out the wheels for 2.3mm wide Gibson or Ultrascale. Some of my layout plans have tight curves ( corners ! ) so you end uphaving to widen check rail gaps on turnouts on the curved bits anyhow.

I made some O-SF track gauges so maybe even a layout in this scale is possible.

For my US layouts the plan is to use HO-SF which is 1.05mm gaps.

All nice and simple ! I prefer the 'shoulder' height layout rather than the traditional bird's eye view type of layout that used to predominate. It is quite hard to spot what gauge/crossing flangeway is in use when you look across the tracks.

Shame you don't still live in Stockport - I could sneak round in the middle of the night with my back-to-back gauges and simplify things for you.

Rob

 

[Phil G]

Thanks to all who have commented.
I will take the advise on offer and stick to EMSF
cheers
Phil,