OO or OO-SF with or without DCC Concepts track

[Buhar]

I’ve been reading up on Templot transition curves and I think I’m starting to understand them a little, although putting them into practise may be different! Still I’m hoping to sit down and try some serious track planning with Templot today! I may report back!

 

Richie

 

Richie, do persist with transition curves, they make a difference to the appearance of the line when empty and also to the appearance of stock as it travels round.  I've got various articles stashed away, some from pre-computer days when you ended up taking your shoes and socks off for the calculations, but I ended up doing mine by eye after some rough measurements.  

 

You do lose some space, eg if you're planning 3ft radius curves to turn 180 deg in a 7ft space, transitions will steal some of that space and you may have to go tighter with the final radius.  Assuming you want curves in scenic areas as gentle as possible, your minimum radius in hidden sections is going to be determined by the gubbins fitted under the loco footplate that might impede bogies etc, the throw of a long loco (eg a 2-6-4T), your arrangements for coupling coaches and fitting gangways and the couplings you use on long wheelbase wagons.

 

You'll have seen Gordon's travails with gradients on an earlier version of Eastwood Town, it might be worth having a shuftie at 71000's investigations on loads to be found on his Basingstoke thread at http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/113725-basingstoke-1958-67-layout-and-stock/page-5

 

Have you thought about DCC Concepts Power Track system or a homemade variation?

[Richie Kynaston]

Hun alan,

Thanks for the input. I was wondering if I’d understood transition curves correcy, but your comments about make me think I have!! I’m reading through Eastwood Town at the moment, but will have a read of Basingstoke too. The one advantage of a modern era layout is that the bogies do tend to me more tolerant than Steam locos, although a Duchess May make an appearance at some point lol!

 

I have seen the Powerbase from DCC Concepts and I do like the look of athat. Even though I can climb over a 15’ length I think any help is going to be beneficial.

 

Richie

[Buhar]

Reading Basingstoke will keep you occupied until Easter! The trouble is there's some really useful, well thought through stuff to be discovered.

 

I'd forgotten you are using modern traction, which makes gradients much less of an issue.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Buhar

[MikeH_83]

Be glad to make then available , obviously you need to plan your points in templot to have common V angles ( or at least the same ones as mine !!! )

 

Awesome!  Although I have a mix of B7-C10 points, most on curves and some are curviform..yikes!   Because of the curves it might be easier doing it another way though.. Not sure yet!

[polybear]

There's also this Common Crossing Assembly jig, available from the EMGS:

http://www.emgs.org/wp-content/uploads/MANUAL_1_2_1_4_pages_all.pdf

HTH

Brian

[dasatcopthorne]

Hello Richard.

 

I've only just found this thread and had a read through.

 

I've built a 4-SF layout. Reading the 'story' of if it may give you one or two pointers.

 

It's on RmWeb here:  http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/77068-falcon-road-tmd-prospect-yard-00-sf-162mm-occasional-update/?hl=%2Bfalcon+%2Broad

 

Dave.

[Junctionmad]

Hello Richard.

 

I've only just found this thread and had a read through.

 

I've built a 4-SF layout. Reading the 'story' of if it may give you one or two pointers.

 

It's on RmWeb here:  http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/77068-falcon-road-tmd-prospect-yard-00-sf-162mm-occasional-update/?hl=%2Bfalcon+%2Broad

 

Dave.

Dave , I notice you used foam underlay , I was thinking of the same , were you satisfied with it ?

 

Regards

Dave

[dasatcopthorne]

Dave , I notice you used foam underlay , I was thinking of the same , were you satisfied with it ?

 

Regards

Dave

 

Dave.

 

Yes, it's fine but only used it because we had it.

 

Would probably use cork if we had that in stock at the club.

 

Just make sure it's the closed-cell type. It must be top quality otherwise you get variations in the thickness. A disaster.

 

Got ours from Wizard Models.

 

Best of luck.

[Junctionmad]

Dave.

 

Yes, it's fine but only used it because we had it.

 

Would probably use cork if we had that in stock at the club.

 

Just make sure it's the closed-cell type. It must be top quality otherwise you get variations in the thickness. A disaster.

 

Got ours from Wizard Models.

 

Best of luck.

Thanks , I have very high quality foam , so I might try it.

[NFWEM57]

On 17/01/2018 at 18:53, polybear said:

Here's the rail head info as promised;

Interesting thread and the issue of code 82 and 83 rail head size continues..!  My aim is to scratch build FB turnouts in EM gauge and I am trying to source code 75 or code 82 FB rail with the correct rail head width.  Not easy.  The PECO code 83 is 15% undersize at 0.79mm. Just waiting on code 82 and code 83 rail from 2 other sources to check dimensions.  If the C&L code 82 rail head is still 0.67mm then that is a non starter.  Marcway have code 75 FB listed but no dimensions but, if the head size is as you have listed and the foot is the correct size, bingo, problem largely solved.

[Stephen Freeman]

On 30/11/2023 at 05:25, NFWEM57 said:

Interesting thread and the issue of code 82 and 83 rail head size continues..!  My aim is to scratch build FB turnouts in EM gauge and I am trying to source code 75 or code 82 FB rail with the correct rail head width.  Not easy.  The PECO code 83 is 15% undersize at 0.79mm. Just waiting on code 82 and code 83 rail from 2 other sources to check dimensions.  If the C&L code 82 rail head is still 0.67mm then that is a non starter.  Marcway have code 75 FB listed but no dimensions but, if the head size is as you have listed and the foot is the correct size, bingo, problem largely solved.

Karlgarin do FB code 82 in HiNi but you should be aware that the foot is slightly too wide to fit Peco pandrols unfortunately. It is of course mainly aimed at Narrow Gauge users.

[NFWEM57]

20 hours ago, Stephen Freeman said:

Karlgarin do FB code 82 in HiNi

Thank you.  Martin Wynne told me the same and when I checked the specification, although the correct height, the head and base are too wide, 22% and 11% oversize respectively.