Boomers Wood

[Steve Cook]

An improvement, but I would say that so far, you have shown that "00 finescale" ain't easy, whereas in EM you wouldn't have had these problems as the tolerances are tighter!

Not quite the full story that though is it? If had used large radius points from the off, similar in length and radius to a B6 EM point, I wouldn't have had the issues I've got (well, had at any rate!). All I've really done is establish a set of parameters within which it can be made to work (in terms of my layout scope) - if had started with this knowledge, half this thread wouldn't have happened And, if I can be slightly flippant - trotting down the the local model shop and handing over some readies ain't exactly difficult (and easier than building 3 EM turnouts).

Suggests to me that 00 "Universal" works best with tension-lock couplers (may also work well with knuckle couplers, but I have no experience of these). If "Finescale" 00 (which I am begiining to think is a contradiction in terms) requires tighter tolerances and therefore handmade track, then the solutions are to narrow the flangeways, increase the B2B and probably re-wheel nearly every loco in sight, or to narrow the flangeways by reducing the gauge. Such a retrograde process seems hardly a step forward.

Maybe "Finescale 00" is really EM?

Maybe. Once I'm up and running, I'll test with the stock I have available and confirm whether propelling reliably with something like the front overhang of a Black 5 is possible, or indeed, not. At least if someone else starts down this route its possible to prove by example the likely issues and restrictions that need to be applied.

Maybe I should run for cover...

Depends on whether you need to mention EM on here again

 

[Simon Dunkley]

Not quite the full story that though is it? If had used large radius points from the off, similar in length and radius to a B6 EM point, I wouldn't have had the issues I've got (well, had at any rate!)

True, but you wanted to use the small radius points to maximise the space, and couldn't, so you have had to compromise already.
There would still be issues with the amount of slop in the standards, which are best addressed by using a combined coupler/buffer (e.g. tension-lock, knuckle, what have you.
It has also been suggested that you might want to spring your buffers: yet another complication on a simple project

All I've really done is establish a set of parameters within which it can be made to work (in terms of my layout scope) - if had started with this knowledge, half this thread wouldn't have happened And, if I can be slightly flippant - trotting down the the local model shop and handing over some readies ain't exactly difficult (and easier than building 3 EM turnouts).

True, but it wasn't your intention to trot down to the shop and hand over some cash: this has cost you unplanned money as well as time: it is no longer the cheap quickie you intended. If you had stuck with tension locks, it would have remained true to your aims.

Once I'm up and running, I'll test with the stock I have available and confirm whether propelling reliably with something like the front overhang of a Black 5 is possible, or indeed, not. At least if someone else starts down this route its possible to prove by example the likely issues and restrictions that need to be applied.

I suspect that it will work, but not 100% of the time.

Going OT here...

We must not forget the original reasons "00" came into being in the first place, both related to the use of German made toys for H0.
Firstly, the mechanisms would not easily fit into a British outline body at 3.5mm scale;
Secondly, it was not possible to get the motion onto a model within the loading gauge, as the wheels were rather coarse and already close to 4mm scale over the outer faces, so increasing the scale made sense as it made the toys look less awful.

Now, I know that a prototype tolerance of, say, 5 thou cannot be practically scaled down by a factor of 76.2, and will mostly end up being a 5 thou fit, so it would be a very interesting game trying to do absolutely everything to exact scale (if done perfectly, it wuld seize up!), but practically speaking, if one adopts wheels to a finer profile and fits them to the B2B required for "Universal" B2B, then the width over the outer faces of the wheels will be less than scale: creates a poor visible impression, but on the plus side, lots of clearance behind cylinders to accommodate sharp curves.*

Back to the original reasons for 00: small mechanisms are no longer an issue, and have not been for a long time.
A narrower wheels set to a much narrower than scale B2B looks odd when viewed low-down and head-on, and also under the footplate.

Narrowing the gauge to reduce the slop is a retrograde step - it is akin to the old Hornby Mk 3 coaches with only 7 window bays and also requires hand built track - and narrowing the flangeways simply involves handbuilding track again, and adjusting if not replacing wheels.

CJF wrote, when I was 10, about this issue in "proprietary to scale" in the Modeller, and he gave I think a very good definition of the word scale in our context: "not a toy". In this context "fine scale" (two words, note!) makes sense - it means even less like a toy. Narrowing the gauge to reduce slop in the track whilst maintaining compatibility with RTR wheel standards is a good engineering solution, but it is a move away from scale, and certainly not a "finescale" or "fine scale" move. Narrowing the flangeways whilst keeping the gauge constant simply means as much work as switching to EM, which latter is a fine scale move as it gets things closer to scale.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people doing what the hell they like - it is a hobby - but I simply cannot see (or will not accept!) that "finescale 00" is possible, except as a shorthand description for EM (and in which case, why not call it E?) I had no problem with 10mm scale and 45mm gauge track, for example, except that a simpler, and better scale - 1:32 - pre-dated 10mm scale. I also have no problem with Universal 00, particularly when playing with my son's trainset with tension locks and 17" radius curves (but I think the LGB has more play value).

Depends on whether you need to mention EM on here again

What's wrong with EM? Plenty of EM on here, and more power to its practioners' collective elbows, say I. I didn't need to mention it: it simply naturally follows as the sensible finescale compromise between ultra-scale and scale models, at leat for 4mm scale models of 4'8.5" prototypes.

Give me "American 00" anyday! (4mm scale, 19mm gauge.)

* There are more things I could say related to this, but perhaps it needs a new thread?

 

[Steve Cook]

True, but you wanted to use the small radius points to maximise the space, and couldn't, so you have had to compromise already.

I used what I could salvage from some old stock. There was no choice in that regard. I tried and failed to build a layout around them using 3 links and have had to compromise.

There would still be issues with the amount of slop in the standards, which are best addressed by using a combined coupler/buffer (e.g. tension-lock, knuckle, what have you.

They might be best addressed by using a combined coupler / buffer, but the layout can be made to work with 3 links and large radius points. The actual issues boil down to a combination of curve radius, overhang (on all stock) and wheel / track standards. That applies to all standards.

It has also been suggested that you might want to spring your buffers: yet another complication on a simple project

In relation to using small radius points. There is no requirement with large radius.

True, but it wasn't your intention to trot down to the shop and hand over some cash: this has cost you unplanned money as well as time: it is no longer the cheap quickie you intended. If you had stuck with tension locks, it would have remained true to your aims.

Thanks for pointing that out, that fact had escaped me as I drove down to the model shop. Alas, if you had bothered to read the thread you would have noted that regarding tension lock couplings I would needed to have bought more stock as converting some of what I have is impossible. Replacement stock would have cost more than the track. It may have been quicker, but I chose compromise to support the use of three links.

What's wrong with EM? Plenty of EM on here, and more power to its practioners' collective elbows, say I.

Nothing. Do you mind if I quote myself to save you going back through the thread?
From the first post

There is another more interesting EM project in the offing, indeed some of the stock for this layout will just be coverted from EM to 00 in the short term to get me going.

You missed the cheeky smiley after my EM comment.

I didn't need to mention it: it simply naturally follows as the sensible finescale compromise between ultra-scale and scale models, at leat for 4mm scale models of 4'8.5" prototypes.

You didn't need to mention it, it was just thread meandering as usual. However, what was interesting was discussing the methods that could be applied to get the layout to work using 00 gauge, a change to EM didn't really help drive any of that forward did it? You're quite happy to throw back in my face comments regarding the fact that the project is no longer as cheap as it could have been, whilst implying that EM would have been better, as long as one ignores the issues of rewheeling stock (wagons and loco), buying some new track, handbuilding some turnouts and adding point motors and switches into the equation. Quick, cheap and easy - at least I stuck to two of them instead of throwing all 3 out of the window. EM would still have given issues at the same point radius, as Neils comments alluded to when he tried using a 25 and swb wagons around a 1'10" radius crossover. It stands a better chance of working I'll admit, but one would have to work within a set of constraints applicable to EM - I'm trying to work out what will work within a set of constraints applicable to 00.

Anyway, I'm getting back to layout building, thats actually fun...

 

[Steve Cook]

Right, back on track with a status update
All of the track is down and pinned in position. Took a bit more care this time and shortened the fishplates meaning there is no need to go back and stick sleepers into position - I still have to do it around the copperclad strips but that was unavoidable as the tracks cross at an angle. Some future proofing has gone on this time round, the wires for frog switching were still attached to these points so they have ben routed through to the underside of the baseboards, there are also holes underneath the tiebars so point motors could be fitted at a later date. Its not something I want to do, but it might make the layout more saleable in time. There has been some tweaking to get usable lengths of track in, the loco release is slightly shorter than it was, but overall think the new track looks better than the previous one.




Time for the soldering iron, wiring and cutting the rails across the board join.

 

[28ten]

Looks much better than the last one

 

[Old Buffer]

The second photo shows the flow of the trackwork better, looks more prototypical, and I should think it will be perfectly workable.

 

[Simon]

That looks better!

The Hymek will look great shunting the track recovery train around

Simon

Taking a break from packing books into boxes for onward despatch to enlightened souls around Western Europe -tea up!

 

[Simon Dunkley]

Thanks for pointing that out, that fact had escaped me as I drove down to the model shop. Alas, if you had bothered to read the thread you would have noted that regarding tension lock couplings I would needed to have bought more stock as converting some of what I have is impossible. Replacement stock would have cost more than the track. It may have been quicker, but I chose compromise to support the use of three links.

Actually, I was commiserating with you - the original plan didn't go as planned. My view, from past experience and supported by yours, is that Peco track works better with tension locks, etc, which is a shame.
(I don't think sprung buffers would have helped with 2' curves, to be honest.)

You missed the cheeky smiley after my EM comment.

No, I didn't, and when I went OT I said I was doing so.
I don't always bother with smileys, as you know, but I clearly said I was going OT, but just to show that remark was in good humour:

You didn't need to mention it, it was just thread meandering as usual.

Usual for me, or threads generally?
Better put another one in:

As I said just above, I went OT and hijacked the thread a bit, as I felt what you are doing, which incidentally looks excellent and is to your usual standard of workmanship, is also demonstrating that whilst "Universal 00" works within a certain context, getting it to be more reliable in a finescale context would involve a similar amount of work to changing to EM, which if built with care looks better and runs better.

However, what was interesting was discussing the methods that could be applied to get the layout to work using 00 gauge, a change to EM didn't really help drive any of that forward did it?

For the third time, I went OT and clearly said so.
My point was that there comes a time when 00 is at its limits, and to solve them requires so much work that I would question anyone going that far.
if I may quote myself:

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people doing what the hell they like - it is a hobby - but I simply cannot see (or will not accept!) that "finescale 00" is possible, except as a shorthand description for EM.

It was after the bit where I went OT, and I was expressing my point of view, which has been long held (about 30 years) and which your experiences are reinforcing for me.

It stands a better chance of working I'll admit, but one would have to work within a set of constraints applicable to EM - I'm trying to work out what will work within a set of constraints applicable to 00.

I think we might be in danger of violently agreeing here...
...I wasn't criticising what you were doing at all, merely commenting on the issues you have highlighted.

The bit where I said, "What's wrong with EM?" probably did need a smiley: that was meant to be a light-hearted signing off, but it was not clear in the post that I had finished going OT , and was attempting levity, so apologies for that.

Anyway, it really does look good: I have rearely seen Peco track laid so well.

Edit: "quote" in square brackets does work, but "qute" doesn't! Also, there is a big difference between "violently agreeing", which is what I thought I had written, and "violently disagreeing", which is what I wrote.

 

[Neil]

I don't want to prolong the EM/finescale OO debate, but I have a couple of observations which might be pertinent.

EM always strikes me as being a bit like the Church of England in that it has room for all sorts of beliefs from the zealot to the slob that can't really be bothered. Guess which end of the spectrum I inhabit. I know there are wheel and track standards and gauges that should ensure the believer sticks within the bounds of what's acceptable, but human nature being what it is lots of us find cheats. I've a lot of stock with distinctly dubious wheel profiles (EM gauged Underground Ernie mechanism is probably the most audacious bodge) which I accommodate by fudging the track standards. Yes I use all the gauges that the EMGS supplies, but sometimes I'll deliberately add a spot of gauge widening in over and above what the three point gauges give. Even when I don't deviate from the gauge settings, because of the need to give a working rather than interference fit to the gauges it's possible to get the rail dead centre or tight to either side in them. It can make a difference in critical spots. Lastly when I used to bash out copper clad pointwork to order I always built the OO stuff to the same tolerances as the EM gauge ones.

Ready to pin down stuff from Peco may (or may not) be a slightly different ball game but it's so long since I used any I cvan't really speak with authority about it.

I'm told my tea is ready, gotta go.

 

[Captain Kernow]

I may have had an unintended purchase in a 3F style whilst at the model shop

OK then Steve, you're going to have to be a bit more precise about this, which one is it?....

a) You can't remember if you made the purchase or not (if you paid by credit or debit card, you can check if you've got a paper receipt - beats waiting for the statement to come or waiting for ages to speak to some disinterested person in the bank's call centre). However, it might actually be easier to see if there is a dark blue box with 'Bachmann 3F' on it sitting on the kitchen table or perhaps it slid under the car seat

b) You did make the purchase, but the experience has so traumatised you, that you have deliberately blanked it from your memory and overlaid the brain cells concerned with a double bill of 'The Sound of Music'

c) You didn't make the purchase, but actually fell asleep at the counter of the model shop and dreamt that you did, and now you're not sure...

d) What you actually bought was a raffle ticket from the model shop proprietor, where the first prize is a Bachmann 3F, but due to the draw not taking place for 3 years, you can't be sure that you actually own one yet...

e) You were blindfold at the time you went shopping, and you exited some shop or other, having parted with your readies, with a box that is just about the right shape, but until you take the blindfold off you're not sure if you've got a 3F or a deluxe box of parsnips

f) You did make the purchase, but it was in an alternative universe, and you left the package at the bus stop/inter-dimensional transfer portal/train station (delete as applicable) and now you can't get back there until a week on Thursday, due to industrial action by quantum physicists

g) You made the purchase in Simon's shop

h) None of the above

i) All of the above

Oh, and before I forget.....

 

[Steve Cook]

Chuck me down for an a) / b) Tim
There's a blue box on the kitchen table, the contents of which will get run in tomorrow when I set up a circle of track, I just need to remember where I put the only dc controller I've got

Thank you for all the positive comments regarding the new trackwork, I'm pleased to report it actually works as well Spent quite a lot of time shuffling stock around today with the Hymek and 08, the only slight area of concern is propelling through the medium radius point with the Hymek - 1 in 20 passes or so suffers an issue, but as its the loco release, I can live with it. No such issues with the large radius stuff, they are quite happy even when propelling at speed through the diverging route. Overall, I'm well chuffed I can use it properly now, so have a photo of the first train to actually complete a run in, run round and distribution of wagons

It took a surprisingly long time to redo all of the wiring, I've been able to simplify it as the longer points mean I can use the break between boards to insulate the frog, previously there would have been just enough room to have straddled that area without causing any clearance issues. All of the old wiring holes have been filled with cocktail sticks to prevent any scenic glue landing on the lounge floor, tomorrows job will be to put a drop of araldite around each of the current holes with wires in to prevent the same.
There has been a start made on the scenic stuff, the bank at the rear of the main board has been shortened to allow a decent length platform to fit in, the carcass of which is drying out overnight. I've cut the plasticard to cover the carcass, but that can wait until tomorrow to be fitted on.


The platform surface will be neglected and overgrowing with weeds, whilst the shelter already has boarded up windows. I would like to get an air of dereliction about it to represent a station that has had its time, but the track is still useful, hence it hasn't quite been demolished yet. We'll have to see how successful (or not) it all turns out.
Time for some sleep.

 

[Steve Cook]

Platform top now fitted into place, along with the brickwork for platform sides. Although it doesn't show very well, there is also a course of 2 bricks that overhang under the platform surface to give a little more interest to a run of bricks.


Time to tidy the workbench of all of the plasticard scrapings

 

[Captain Kernow]

Looks very good, Steve.

Have you thought about having some or all of the platform copers removed and giving the remaining vertical brickwork a 'cut back' look, so common on many closed stations next to running lines in the 1960s?

 

[Steve Cook]

Sorry Tim, you'll have to forgive my ignorance on these matters, but I'm not sure what you mean Can you point me in the direction of a piccie so I can understand please.
Ta
Steve

 

[28ten]

Steve, the slabs at the platform edge

 

[Steve Cook]

Ah these bits.... (cheers Guv)
Otherwise known as the bits I've just glued on...bugger
In that case Tim, erm, no. Great idea for future layout, unless I can get away with removing a few - or did they tend to strip the whole front edge?

Steve

 

[Neil]

I think that it tended to be an all or nothing job Steve; but if it's any help the platform edging is still in place on the long disused second platform at Aberdovey though well hidden by weeds and brambles.

 

[Simon]

I think that it tended to be an all or nothing job Steve; but if it's any help the platform edging is still in place on the long disused second platform at Aberdovey though well hidden by weeds and brambles.

I'd vote for keep 'em on anyway, got to have proper on and off facilities for the paytrain passengers!

Simon

 

[Steve Cook]

Cheers Gents, on it is then
Platform clearances checked with stock before scenery starts


New toy...lovely Even found the DC controller for a spot of running in later...


The tender brake shoes appeared to have had an arguement with the wheels and gone off in a sulk (as noted by Chris Nevard on his blog - its his fault I bought a 3F, it looks great in his photos), but to my untrained eye everything else looks just fine. Hope it runs as well..
Steve

 

[Captain Kernow]

Cheers Gents, on it is then
unless I can get away with removing a few - or did they tend to strip the whole front edge?

It all looks great, Steve.

Removing slabs wasn't done in all cases, far from it. They did tend to remove the whole length that was to be disused, which implies the lot for a completely closed station, although they sometimes retained a short length in cases where (eg.) traincrew would use the old platform for crew changes etc.

You could also say that the old platform continues to be used for occasional parcels traffic?

One interesting case was Tetbury, where some of the old platform edging was removed, yet leaving a short length at the end, next to the station buildings, for the railbuses that were introduced towards the end of the branch's life.