OO and N gauge trackwork

[Richie Kynaston]

Evening all,

I am not really sure if this is the place to post this or not, but it seemed the most appropriate place. Having been debating for well over six months (probably nearer 12) about getting back into railway modelling, instead of just being an armchair (or should that be PC) modeller on rmWeb, I've been trying to way up whether to go OO or N, and to be honest am probably still no-nearer a decision. The advantage of N is the longer prototypical trains, ability to do rolling scenery etc, where as OO gives you DCC sound abilities, more detail on the locos and probably trackwork too. The layout would be mid to late 1980s period, so the attention to detail on the trackwork and signalling appeals.

 

Initially OO gauge seemed to offer some options with the ability to buy concrete sleepers and various options from Colin Craig to make up trackwork, but to be honest I am getting totally lost with where I should be going with that., what works with what and what doesn't. Any suggestions?

 

I have been looking at N gauge for the reasons given above, and had decided that if I went down that route Peco Code 55 was the way to go. But I don't like the big blocks of plastic around the switch blades, and the funny sleeper spacing at the ends (circled in red in the picture taken from the Peco website) - so the first question is can these be modified, without demolishing the entire point to get rid of them? The points will be motorised, so I don't need anyway of working them from above - also can the springs be removed if they are linked to a servo or something similar?

 

Looking around the N gauge forum, I saw an advert for British Finescale, which uses Code 40 track and seems to provide both wooden and concrete sleeper trackwork for metre-length and paintwork, although I believe there are single and double slips to follow as well. Has anyone used this? That seems to get around the problems with the Peco track and looks great, but is somewhat expensive. Around £15-£16 per point kit, rather than £11 for Peco and needs to be built. While my initial layout will be more of a demo and photo plank, my main aim is more of a main line approach with quadruple track and sidings, and as much as I would like to I am not sure I can justify spending £5 per metre on Code 40 when I could do it with £3 per metre on Peco Code 55. I am estimating that excluding fiddle yards, the layout would have probably 50-60 metres of track potentially a £120 difference in cost.

 

I know Peco OO sleepers are incorrectly spaced, but is it the same with N? Is there anyway of spacing them out correctly? Is there any real benefit to going down the Code 40 route, and what are the kits like to put together?

 

Any thoughts, comments, suggestions on the above or alternative track systems is welcomed. The key thing is that with wanting to do some photos and video of the finished (well should I say well advanced, as nothing is really ever finished) layout, I want the track to look just good as the locos do.

 

Richie

[woodyfox]

Hi Richie,

 

My choice of choosing N scale was the increase in quality and variety available over the last 20 years. I'm not bothered about sound either and find DDC lighting on stock to be the wrong colour and way too bright. With 4mm OO gauge, space soon disappears if you wish to follow mainline practice or any prototype location. Sleeper spacing can be resolved by cutting the webbing between the sleepers and sliding them out to between 26 to 30 per scale 60' length depending on the line modelled. You should lose 12 to 15 over a metre of track.

Ultimately it's your choice based upon what appeals the most. Track detailing varies with whether you're depicting manual or electronic signalling and the Peco points can be trimmed of their plastic block parts without damaging their operation in any scale. Removing the spring is fine too if you are using a Fulgarex et.al type motor to hold the blades over. I attempted to scratch build N gauge point work using copperclad from Marcway and Peco code 60 rail but failed to get good, consistent running through my homemade frogs.

 

Regards

[Kris]

British finescale track is a significant improvement over Peco, and well worth the extra to my eyes. I have gone down this route for my layout. 

[Revolution Ben]

 

Hi Richie,

 

Welcome back.

 

For our previous N gauge club layouts we have used Peco Code 55, but for the next one (currently at the baseboard stage) we are actively considering Finetrax and have purchased a couple of metres and a jig to have a play. We may use this in the scenic section and Code 55 (or 80) in the non-scenic areas.

 

Recently the first factory-fitted DCC Sound models in N were released, first the Farish Nunney Castle and Class 40, then the Revolution/Rapido Pendolino, and most recently the Dapol Class 68 and with the DCC Sound models apparently selling out faster than the silent it seems to me that this choice is only going to increase.

 

And on a wider note in my view the latest N gauge models are a big step change better than those of even ten years ago, let alone 20 or 30.

 

Cheers

 

Ben A.

[Richie Kynaston]

Guys,

Many thanks for all your replies.

 

I am, probably, jumping into the pool at the deep end without a life jacket in this but I am fortunate in having quite a big space to be abl e to do something, as you may have gathered from the earlier comment about the number of meters of track!. I am keen that I don’t want to take on too much, but at the same time I want something that I will enjoy. I have been planning a potential OO gauge East Midlands layout which I think looks interesting, but the N gauge version comes over a far more realistic and covers a bigger area of railway.

 

A friend of mine is a member on here and several months ago he taught me how to use Templot so I have a design laid out, but of course the issue is that recreating Peco pointwork in Templot isn’t easily done. Then I found the FiNetrax option but from what I can see there are no curved points or slips at the moment. While the plan doesn’t use many of the latter, may two in total, they are fairly vital, and having to put a Peco slip in would stand out like a sore thumb I feel.

 

The other issue is I have a fairly large triangular Junction and I am not sure that the diamonds will work. As I think there is only one size of them in the fiNetrax system at the moment. I am not sure I have the skill to totally scratchbuild my own track in 2mm gauge, so am feeling a little stuck with where I go. Does anyone know what Peco points and crossings correlate to in Templot ie, A7, B6 or B8 etc?

 

Woodyfox, thanks for the comment about spacing out sleepers. I am thinking that may be an option for the Yard trackwork. How are points affected from sleepering? I am planning on using servo’s with the Megapoints system for controlling points, it seems a good, accurate and reliable method.

 

I think Code 55 will definately be used in the fiddle yards for speed.

 

Cheers

Richie

[woodyfox]

 

Woodyfox, thanks for the comment about spacing out sleepers. I am thinking that may be an option for the Yard trackwork. How are points affected from sleepering? I am planning on using servo’s with the Megapoints system for controlling points, it seems a good, accurate and reliable method.

 

 

 

Cheers

Richie

 

Richie,

 

Unfortunately you're pretty much stuck with sleeper spacing on Peco points, one of the reasons for my scratchbuilding  attempts.

 

Regards

[Kris]

Then I found the FiNetrax option but from what I can see there are no curved points 

 

It is possible to add a gentle curve to the points by cutting out some of the base webbing. 

[Richie Kynaston]

Thanks guys,

I see the nBrass do the various gauges for handbuilt track in 2mm - I suppose it is feasible therefore to handbuild some of the pointwork from scratch, using fiNetrax Code 40 rail which is available separately - there is only the chairs and sleepers that cause the problem.  Im guessing soldering to copper clad sleepers would be the answer, but then the same issue occurs, does it stand out like a sore thumb?  Does anyone know where suitable track components (other than those available through fiNetrax) can be acquired?

 

Richie

[Kris]

Thanks guys,

I see the nBrass do the various gauges for handbuilt track in 2mm - I suppose it is feasible therefore to handbuild some of the pointwork from scratch, using fiNetrax Code 40 rail which is available separately - there is only the chairs and sleepers that cause the problem.  Im guessing soldering to copper clad sleepers would be the answer, but then the same issue occurs, does it stand out like a sore thumb?  Does anyone know where suitable track components (other than those available through fiNetrax) can be acquired?

 

Richie

 

Join the 2mm scale association. They have the track components you want. 

[Atso]

Hi I've built several of the Finetrax turnout kits for my future layout. It is a little time consuming threading all the chairs onto the rail but worth it. Here is my collection ready for when I build some boards.

 

 

I then took the plunge and tried scratch building a couple of turnouts for the fiddle yard using 2mm association rail and copper clad sleepers. These were built before the N Gauge code 40 roller gauges became available and so I used 1mm thick cardboard to make various jigs to set the gauge and check rail clearances. Before I knew it I'd build this as an experiment.

 

 

I've not yet isolated the various bits and tried running a loco through it but my test wagons seem to be happy enough - I've got a few improvements to make before the final version though (my fiddle yard plan calls for two of these formations!). I've now purchased the N Brass rollers gauges which makes life easier and the only cardboard jig I still use is the one to make the 'V' for the common crossing. I was very surprised as it isn't as difficult to make your own track as I though and the copper clad system is much cheaper than Peco.

Edited September 17, 2018 by Atso

[Richie Kynaston]

Join the 2mm scale association. They have the track components you want. 

 

Thanks Chris,

I was planning on joining the N gauge society, but hadn't come across the 2mm Scale Association, which I presume is a different organisation. I'll go and investigate further!  Thanks for the advice.

 

Hi I've built several of the Finetrax turnout kits for my future layout. It is a little time consuming threading all the chairs onto the rail but worth it. Here is my collection ready for when I build some boards.

 

image.jpg

 

I then took the plunge and tried scratch building a couple of turnouts for the fiddle yard using 2mm association rail and copper clad sleepers. These were built before the N Gauge code 40 roller gauges became available and so I used 1mm thick cardboard to make various jigs to set the gauge and check rail clearances. Before I knew it I'd build this as an experiment.

 

image.jpg

 

I've not yet isolated the various bits and tried running a loco through it but my test wagons seem to be happy enough - I've got a few improvements to make before the final version though (my fiddle yard plan calls for two of these formations!). I've now purchased the N Brass rollers gauges which makes life easier and the only cardboard jig I still use is the one to make the 'V' for the common crossing. I was very surprised as it isn't as difficult to make your own track as I though and the copper clad system is much cheaper than Peco.

 

 

Hi Steve,

Thanks - those fiNetrax points do look good, although I wonder if there is a way to make the cast 'vees' black?  You look to have done so on one of the points. What did you think to how the kits went together? Did you use the jigs that they sell?

 

I am in awe at your scratch build on copper clad. Wow!  Totally stunning.  I suspect that once the sleepers have been sprayed, if put next to the fiNetrax paintwork you would struggle to tell the difference?

 

Richie

[rob D2]

There’s a lot of N gauge fans waving the flag here and that’s fine as it is great for Landscapes.

 

Thing that put me off was simply the lack of “ stuff “ available compared with OO. There’s just simply more as it’s a bigger market by far.

 

Bachmann reckons N is 20% of their business .

[Atso]

Hi Richie,

 

Thanks for the kind comments.

 

Finetrax frog: it has been blacken, but not by me. It is how it arrived and I don't know why this one was done unless Wayne was doing a bit of an experiment and it accidentally made it into the box! The frogs are cast in nickel silver so a suitable chemical blackening agent should work well with it.

 

I purchased the straight rail assembly jig and the B6 rail filing jig. I would say that you could thread plain track without the assembly jig (but it won't be as easy) but you'll need to get the rail filling jig as the shape of the blades is quite critical. I tried filing the blades for one of my scratch built efforts and it was the worst performing point I'd built.

 

With regard to my copper clad builds, two things will instantly set them apart from the Finetrax. The first is the sleeper spacing as, as these are for the fiddle yard, I spaced the sleepers as approximately 10mm intervals to make them go further. The second is that they are slightly lower than Finetrax (approximately 0.25mm) due to the lack of chairs. Again, this isn't a problem for me as this isn't scenic track work and I'll use some thin cardboard to shim the track to the height of the Finetrax.

 

The biggest benefit is cost, the scissor/double slip arrangement would cost over £100 to source the bits from Peco and I'd still have needed to cut and splice them together. Including the materials I wasted on mistakes, the copper clad version cost less than £10 and a standard turnout worked out at around £1.30-£1.50. The negative side is time; it typically takes me around 90 minutes now to build a turnout (the first was a bit over two hours but I'd also built all of the Finetrax points first and watched some YouTube videos) - I recently taught a friend how to make these in around the same amount of time. The scissor/double slip on the other hand took around ten hours! I hope that once I've finalised the design of this, I'm hoping it'll only take that long to build the two that will be used for the layout.

[Atso]

There’s a lot of N gauge fans waving the flag here and that’s fine as it is great for Landscapes.

Thing that put me off was simply the lack of “ stuff “ available compared with OO. There’s just simply more as it’s a bigger market by far.

Bachmann reckons N is 20% of their business .

You're right that the N Gauge range of stock isn't as great as it is in 4mm scale (nor is it likely to ever be) and this used to upset me in my early years on N Gauging after it sold my OO stuff (lack of space). I now see this as part of the challenge and fun. The V1 tank engine pictured above is a 3D print that I designed to fit on a modified Farish N Class chassis and then detailed and hand painted (including the lining but not the lettering).

 

The smaller range available made me have to think differently and learn new/different skills to get what I want (not many suitable models for a 1930s era stretch of the old GNR mainline) and while it is occasionally frustrating, I am quite pleased with what I've achieved so far.

 

It is the wonderful thing about this hobby, you can choose your scale and just how far you'd like to take things and there is no wrong choice!

[Richie Kynaston]

There’s a lot of N gauge fans waving the flag here and that’s fine as it is great for Landscapes.

Thing that put me off was simply the lack of “ stuff “ available compared with OO. There’s just simply more as it’s a bigger market by far.

Bachmann reckons N is 20% of their business .

 

Hi Rob,

Thanks for that, a very valid comment and I was hoping that somebody would way-in with a viewpoint on OO gauge trackwork, especially with regard to Colin Craig’s range of concrete sleepers for hand built plain line, as they seem superb! But I was getting totally lost with the various options. The Peco issue of sleeper spacing raises its head again in terms of RTR OO gauge trackwork, and that does bug me. Your right about the choice if rolling stock being wider. I am conscious of that, but also that I wouldn’t mind having a go at detailing and repainting locos, along with sound and light fitting, all of which is obviously more restrictive in N.

 

In many respects OO sits on the winning side in several respects, but it’s just fitting a main line layout scene together that I am happy with. N does make that a lot easier and would allow a representation of part of a route rather than a small section of railway. I have been trying to answer or create a workaround for each of the ‘cons’ in both N and OO in order to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

 

Hi Richie,

Thanks for the kind comments.

Finetrax frog: it has been blacken, but not by me. It is how it arrived and I don't know why this one was done unless Wayne was doing a bit of an experiment and it accidentally made it into the box! The frogs are cast in nickel silver so a suitable chemical blackening agent should work well with it.

Steve,

Thanks again for all that, really useful. I am thinking that Peco trackwork in the hidden Sidings, and a combination of fiNetax and handbuilt on the scenic section would be the answer if I do go down the N gauge route.

 

Richie

Edited September 18, 2018 by Richie Kynaston

[rob D2]

You're right that the N Gauge range of stock isn't as great as it is in 4mm scale (nor is it likely to ever be) and this used to upset me in my early years on N Gauging after it sold my OO stuff (lack of space). I now see this as part of the challenge and fun. The V1 tank engine pictured above is a 3D print that I designed to fit on a modified Farish N Class chassis and then detailed and hand painted (including the lining but not the lettering).

The smaller range available made me have to think differently and learn new/different skills to get what I want (not many suitable models for a 1930s era stretch of the old GNR mainline) and while it is occasionally frustrating, I am quite pleased with what I've achieved so far.

It is the wonderful thing about this hobby, you can choose your scale and just how far you'd like to take things and there is no wrong choice!

 

Absolutely, and I wouldn’t ever decry anyone’s choice. I can see the benefits to all of them. I was weaned on N, grew up on OO and now I’m going grey am considering O....!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... OO gauge seemed to offer some options with the ability to buy concrete sleepers and various options from Colin Craig to make up trackwork, but to be honest I am getting totally lost with where I should be going with that., what works with what and what doesn't. Any suggestions?...

Give a little more of a clue of the period and thus track you are after, as there is a significant range of choice in OO.

 

It all works together, so behind the scenes relatively cheap code 100 rail built one sleeper in five on copperclad 'old timey style' if wanting to really get the cost down, with the option of relatively cheap streamline medium or large radius points which are very reliable, to speed the build process there.

 

For the track that is 'on view' there are the supplies to handbuild better track both BH and FB from various sources some of which you know, and BH and FB plain track likewise from Scaleway, C&L Marcway, Peco. And then Peco have recently slightly broken the mould with RTL points in code 75 bullhead with more authentically spaced and dimensioned timbering, continuous point blades and other improvement over what has long been standard in their streamline hybrid OO/HO range. Will they make a similar move to a superior OO FB range? I wouldn't bet against it.

 

Lots of choice in short, and likely to expand further.

[Richie Kynaston]

Give a little more of a clue of the period and thus track you are after, as there is a significant range of choice in OO.

 

It all works together, so behind the scenes relatively cheap code 100 rail built one sleeper in five on copperclad 'old timey style' if wanting to really get the cost down, with the option of relatively cheap streamline medium or large radius points which are very reliable, to speed the build process there.

 

For the track that is 'on view' there are the supplies to handbuild better track both BH and FB from various sources some of which you know, and BH and FB plain track likewise from Scaleway, C&L Marcway, Peco. And then Peco have recently slightly broken the mould with RTL points in code 75 bullhead with more authentically spaced and dimensioned timbering, continuous point blades and other improvement over what has long been standard in their streamline hybrid OO/HO range. Will they make a similar move to a superior OO FB range? I wouldn't bet against it.

 

Lots of choice in short, and likely to expand further.

 

 

Thanks for that - I am looking mid-late 1980s, may be early early 1990s at the latest.  I know sidings and the like would be wooden sleepers (probably not having been relayed in decades) but I am not sure about main lines, at that time would they have been concrete sleepers, and would that have included pointwork?

 

Cheers

Richie

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Let's hope for a specialist in BR mainline track 1985-90, and the best OO modelling resources that suit. All concrete sleeper FB including points on the section of the ECML on view from my office window at that time would be my 'stab' at it.

 

The long time available Scaleway type J and recently introduced Peco Bullhead might be just the thing for the old wooden sleepered slow lines and yards not relaid in years. (That's what the class 31 that spread the rails during the lifting of the stub of the old Hertford branch and associated lines was no longer running on in about 1985, much to the discomfiture of the fellow supervising.)