Handbuilding turnouts, using gauges

[blueeighties]

Hi all. I started constructing the baseboards for my new layout earlier in the Year, and making good progress with new techniques, (plywood 'sandwich' construction), thought I would use this new found confidence to have a go at building my own track.

After looking at a few different options, I decided on C and L handbuilt points, with their ready made flexi, in 00 gauge.

I started by purchasing a turnout in a bag kit, with the common crossing allready made up. Took a couple of evenings to construct this, seems to run ok. Taught me the basics, gave me a good understanding of what is required for a good running turnout.

Next, I thought I would have a go at a common crossing. Nightmare. Tried filing a vee up, but just found it impossible.Came close to giving up out of sheer frustration. So, purchased a set of pre miled vee and switch rails.

Made a 1-6 jig, out of a small piece of plywood, with copperclad slip glued to it at the correct 1-6 angle, found this reasonably straight forward to solder up. Progressed onto the rest of the crossing, and after a bit of a struggle, finished it. Its not pefect, but runs.

Gauge wise, all I have are 2 roller gauges as supplied in the C and L complete kits. I have searched in vain to see if I can find some 00 gauges to help with the common crossing, and setting the check rails.

I know these are available in EM and P4 from the societies, but why no OO? Just wondering if anyone knows of any that are available.

I have the Norman Solomon 'Right Track' dvd about track construction, he makes it look so easy. Can anyone offer any advice or tips with regards to the construction of the common crossing.

If needs be I will either revert to the kits in a bag, but at the very least would like to make my own up using C and L's milled rail sets. The area I am finding particularly tricky is getting the bends of the wing rails in the correct position.

I do feel that better gauges would help too.

 

Many thanks,

 

Lee

[martin_wynne]

I have searched in vain to see if I can find some 00 gauges to help with the common crossing, and setting the check rails.

I know these are available in EM and P4 from the societies, but why no OO?

Hi Lee,

 

The all-important check gauge tool for 00-SF is available from Brian Tulley: http://00-sf.org.uk

 

 

It sets the check gauge at 15.2mm, which is also correct for 00-BF (and DOGA intermediate).

 

Brian also has 1.0mm crossing flangeway gauge shims for EM, 00-SF and DOGA-00-Fine.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[trisonic]

Martin - Is that what you were also recommending to me for NMRA HO? Do you have a photo of it in the correct position? It's the square section that throws me..................it's probably totally obvious so bear with me, OK?

 

Best, Pete.

[martin_wynne]

Martin - Is that what you were also recommending to me for NMRA HO? Do you have a photo of it in the correct position? It's the square section that throws me

Hi Pete,

 

Yes, it's the same check gauge for NMRA H0.

 

It's not a square section, the photo is misleading. It's a turned roller gauge tool with two slots for the rail. The nearer slot in the photo fits on the running rail and the far slot on the opposite check rail (guard rail) to set it at the correct check gauge. The check gauge is the most important single dimension in constructing pointwork, so if you buy only one gauge tool, make it this one. Or preferably a pair of them, as supplied by Brian in pairs.

 

The near end has been machined off to a flat on one side only. This makes it possible to rotate the gauge tool and set the tool against the nose of the crossing vee (frog) where the rail is too wide to fit in the slot.

 

I will try to find a picture of the check gauge tool in use on track under construction. There is probably a pic on the Scalefour Society's web site.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[blueeighties]

Hi. That looks like what I am looking for, but, OO finescale? I am building my track from C and L templates, I presumed at 16.5 mm, would the gauge not be suitable for this?

Regards,

Lee.

[martin_wynne]

Hi. That looks like what I am looking for, but, 00 finescale? I am building my track from C and L templates, I presumed at 16.5 mm, would the gauge not be suitable for this?

Hi Lee,

 

There are several "00 finescale" standards, so you need to be clear what you mean. The C&L printed templates are nominally 16.5mm gauge but can be used to build track to any 00 standards. The standards are set my means of the gauge tools, not a paper template. However, for proper accuracy, especially for diamond-crossings and slips, it's best to use templates created specifically for the gauge and standard which you are using.

 

The C&L roller gauge tools are for the DOGA-Fine standard, 16.5mm track gauge with 15.5mm check gauge and 1.0mm flangeways. This is not directly compatible with RTR models as supplied -- wheels have to be opened up to 14.7mm back-to-back. The 00-SF check gauge tool mentioned in my previous posts is not suitable for DOGA-Fine.

 

To use RTR models exactly as supplied without modifying the wheels, the two "00 finescale" options are 00-BF and 00-SF, and the 00-SF check gauge tool is suitable for both of these. However, you are not building either of these if you are using C&L 00 roller gauge tools.

 

I've written a summary of the 00 gauge standards which I've posted here on RMweb and elsewhere several times, and here it is yet again:

_________

 

These comments are mine alone, others will almost certainly disagree:

 

Broadly you have four standards to choose from (with approximate equivalents):

 

a. 00/H0 = DOGA Coarse/Commercial = Peco code 100

 

b. 00-BF = BRMSB = DOGA Intermediate = NMRA H0

 

c. DOGA Fine

 

d. 00-SF

 

---------------------------------------

 

a. 00/H0 = DOGA Coarse/Commercial = Peco code 100

 

16.5mm gauge. Flangeways 1.5mm/1.4mm

 

Peco flangeways used to be 1.5mm. I believe Peco made an unannounced change to 1.4mm flangeways at some time in recent years.

 

With 1.4mm flangeways most modern RTR wheels will run ok, although some may be just borderline on bumping in the crossings. Finer wheels such as Romford/Markits or Alan Gibson will definitely fall in the crossings with a bump, and may even derail.

 

This is not far removed from toy track. I don't think anyone building their own track would ever consider using this standard, unless for some reason you want to run very old RTR such as Tri-ang or Trix Twin on handbuilt track.

 

You may hear it suggested that wheels don't bump because they run on the flanges through Peco crossings. If this happens it is extremely bad news -- it means the wheel has been lifted off the rail and will lose electrical pick-up.

------------------------------------------

 

b. 00-BF = BRMSB = DOGA Intermediate = NMRA H0

 

16.5mm gauge. 1.3mm flangeways

 

This is traditional "scale 00" as defined by the BRMSB circa 1950, and also matching most H0 tracks. A large number of fine 00 layouts have been built using this standard over the years, including some of the well-known ones on the exhibition circuit today.

 

In the early days RTR was too coarse for this. But virtually all modern RTR should run on 00-BF just fine as-is. Romford/Markits wheels are just borderline, Alan Gibson wheels are likely to be bumpy, but may be improved by tweaking the back-to-back.

 

No gauge-widening is ever needed, there is plenty of slack in the dimensions for sharp curves.

--------------------------------------------

 

c. DOGA Fine

 

16.5mm gauge 1.0mm flangeways

 

This is DOGA's answer to the problem of improved running for wheels such as Alan Gibson. The huge disadvantage of this standard is that it requires the wheels to have a wider than normal back-to-back dimension. All wheels using DOGA Fine track have to be adjusted to the DOGA Fine back-to-back gauge.

 

And having been so modified, such wheels are unlikely to run well, or won't run at all, on any of the other 00 standards.

 

This is not a standard to use if you want to run RTR straight out of the box, or interchange your rolling stock with friends' layouts not using this standard.

 

Nor can you mix this standard with any other on the same layout. So no using Peco turnouts in the fiddle yard. All the track on your layout must be to this standard before you can run the first train.

 

It does mean however that the 16.5mm gauge matches all available flexi-track. Although this may not be suitable on very sharp curves where some gauge widening up to say 16.8mm may be needed for long-wheelbase locomotives.

------------------------------------------

 

d. 00-SF

 

16.2mm gauge. 1.0mm flangeways

 

This alternative to DOGA Fine uses a reduced track gauge to avoid the need for wheels to be modified.

 

Reports suggest that virtually all modern RTR also runs well on 00-SF exactly as supplied. This will certainly be the case if the wheels comply with the NMRA H0 standard. Most RTR manufacturers' published dimensions correspond to this. However you are relying on their quality-control and you may find an odd wheelset which needs adjustment, or to be returned for replacement.

 

For 00-SF, wheels need a back-to-back dimension of at least 14.3mm to be sure of running well. And a BEF dimension not greater than 15.2mm. With an effective flange thickness of 0.8mm that means a maximum back-to-back of 14.4mm for RTR wheels. The NMRA standard is 14.4mm.

 

The NMRA RP25/110 flange thickness is 0.8mm max which easily clears a 1.0mm flangeway, as for DOGA Fine. Romford/Markits and Alan Gibson wheels have thinner flanges, corresponding to RP25/100 and RP25/90, and the back-to-back can be increased accordingly to the 15.2mm BEF limit.

 

The reduced 16.2mm track gauge may or may not be an issue. For very sharp curves you may need gauge-widening up to 16.5mm, so flexi-track can be used normally. For gentler curves and straight plain track you can either use flexi-track, with an adjustment where it joins pointwork (hardly noticeable except by those who are determined to notice it!).

 

Or you can handbuild 16.2mm plain track. This is the best option for a small fine-scale layout because you can correctly model the 60ft (or other) rail lengths and closed-up timbering at the rail joints. It's a lot of work on a very large layout of course.

 

However, because you are not changing the wheels, the layout remains fully interchangeable with 00-BF and Peco, and you can mix the different standards on the same layout. Handbuilt 00-SF at the front, 16.5mm flexi round the ends, Peco turnouts or existing 00-BF turnouts in the fiddle yard at the back.

 

And if you already have a layout in 00-BF or Peco, you can convert it to 00-SF one turnout at a time.

 

Apart from improved running, a big advantage of both DOGA Fine and 00-SF is the much improved appearance of the track with narrower 1.0mm flangeways. As can be seen in the diagrams at http://00-sf.org.uk .

 

------------------------------------

 

As for a personal recommendation, I think your choice is between 00-BF (DOGA Intermediate) and 00-SF.

 

Use 00-BF / DOGA-Intermediate if you don't even want to think about wheels and don't mind the appearance of the wider flangeways or the possibility of a slight bump with Alan Gibson wheels. Gauges for 00-BF are available from Marcway, Markits, DOGA, or NMRA. 00-BF gauges are not available from C&L.

 

Use 00-SF if you want the best appearance and smoothest running, but are prepared to check wheels and possibly replace any rogue wheelsets if you are unlucky. Gauges for 00-SF are available via the 00-SF group thanks to the valuable efforts of members from C&L and DCC Concepts. (The check gauge tool for 00-SF is interchangeable with the check gauge for 00-BF.)

 

If I was starting a 00 layout I would certainly choose 00-SF. I've made lots of it in the past. It worked fine then and it would do so again.

________________

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[trisonic]

Thanks, Martin. No need for photo now as I understand what the flat section is for and how it works.

 

 

I have a set of Roller Gauges in HO from Steve Hatch of "Railway Engineering" (www.railway eng.com). Now he makes separate gauges dependent on the height code (Codes 55, 70 or 83) - is this important?

What about the cross section of the top of the rail? If I used the OO-SF gauge with ME Code 70 would it work OK?

 

In a obscure section of the Fast Tracks site there is a comparison in sizes (incl. widths) of just about every piece of rail available and they are all over the place!

 

Best, Pete.

[martin_wynne]

What about the cross section of the top of the rail? If I used the OO-SF gauge with ME Code 70 would it work OK?

Hi Pete,

 

Sorry, without some rail here to measure, I don't know. The 00-SF gauge tools are designed to fit UK rail sections scaled at 4mm/ft. That means a rail-head width of 0.92mm / 0.036" . This corresponds to the code 75 bullhead and code 82 flat-bottom rail available from C&L and elsewhere in the UK.

 

(The code 75 bullhead rail available from SMP/Marcway is underscale at 0.032" width, and needs some bits of paper packing in the gauge tool slots to use them accurately. Which is a fiddly nuisance, but can be done. The same may be possible with your code 70 rail if the head-width is less than 0.036" .)

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[trisonic]

Martin,

 

Ha, yes I came across the same problem in reverse when planning a P4 layout but not wanting to ship rail around the globe! It doesn't work....well you might get lucky...

 

Head Width / Base Width

 

ME Code 70 is: 0.031 / 0.069

 

ME Code 83: 0.032 / 0.067

 

ME Code 100: 0.040 / 0.080

 

 

All +/- .001"

 

None of them suit! It's something to remember when buying gauges from other countries. At least it explains why Steve Hatch has so many different gauges.....

 

Best, Pete.

[blueeighties]

Hi Martin, thank you for the info. So I have been building the points, using the C and L roller gauge tools as supplied in the kit. And you tell me I need to adjust the back to back measurements of all my stock? Why on Earth is none of this mentioned in the Instructions? As a novice I appreciated there is EM and P4 but not the other standards you mention.

So as it stands, My stock won't run properly, and I have a built into a standard with no commercialy available gauges to help with making common crossings.

I thought I Was doing well to improve on the looks of Peco. At this rate, I feel like binning it and going back to Peco.

I am confused as to why C and L make no mention of needing to alter the back to backs of rtr stock. Think I need to ring them.

Regards,

Lee.

[martin_wynne]

So I have been building the points, using the C and L roller gauge tools as supplied in the kit. And you tell me I need to adjust the back to back measurements of all my stock? Why on Earth is none of this mentioned in the Instructions?

Hi Lee,

 

I'm sorry, I can't answer for C&L. I can understand your frustration and I have suggested to Brian Lewis in the past that supplying gauges for DOGA-Fine is probably not what most users want, expect or understand. In his defence I can only point out that the dimensions are clearly stated on his web site:

 

 

 

 

Many users do end up widening their wheels to 14.8mm back-to-back, but it makes more sense to me to use the other 00 standards which don't require that. If you want to mess with wheels you may as well go to EM or P4 in the first place.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[blueeighties]

The whole point of me sticking with OO was that I didn't want the extra expense, or complication of wheel changing. It's hard enough building the track. Honestly, this is turning into such a minefield, It's really putting me off. Without suitable check rail/common crossing gauges, I can't build anything accurately.

I guess that's why Peco remains popular, its hassle free, and works reliably.

Regards,

Lee.

[martin_wynne]

The whole point of me sticking with OO was that I didn't want the extra expense, or complication of wheel changing. It's hard enough building the track. Honestly, this is turning into such a minefield, It's really putting me off. Without suitable check rail/common crossing gauges, I can't build anything accurately.

Hi Lee,

 

You probably don't need to change all your wheels. Many can be eased out to 14.8mm wih a bit of care. The big downside of course is that they then become incompatible with most other 00 gauge layouts.

 

I can't do anything about the minefield, sorry. I firmly believe that 00-SF is the best answer and would give you exactly what you are looking for -- accurate track, good running, and no requirement to mess about with the wheels. Another convert to 00-SF is here:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?showtopic=3422&view=findpost&p=185799

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[blueeighties]

Hi Martin.

The problem is, I have allready committed, purchased a full box of flexi, point kits, and various other bits and bobs, and this stuff is not cheap.

In a nutshell, I thought I had decided on a system that was fairly straight forward to build, and wouldnt require any wheel changing.

I'm actually coming to the conclusion that its not worth all the extra time and money, I want the finescale look, but I need something that works well with rtr out the box.

My sensible head is saying back to Peco before I waste anything else.

Regards,

Lee.

[Taz]

Lee,

 

Before you give up have a look at my thread on building track.

 

http://www.rmweb.co....896#entry354896

 

I use the C&L gauges but by doing things just a little differently you shouldn't need to worry about adjusting your RTR wheel back to backs.

 

I use the gauges to set a 1mm gap at the V but I have made a U shaped jig out of some bits of 1.6mm copperclad to set the check rails gaps just that little bit wider. This is enough to allow unmodified RTR to run but also allows you to retain the finer tolerances at the V (which is where it is most noticable)

 

I can't take any credit for this idea. It is how Norman Soloman does it in his Right Track DVDs.

 

HTH.

[martin_wynne]

I use the gauges to set a 1mm gap at the V but I have made a U shaped jig out of some bits of 1.6mm copperclad to set the check rails gaps just that little bit wider. This is enough to allow unmodified RTR to run but also allows you to retain the finer tolerances at the V

Hi Brian,

 

The problem there is that 1.6mm is too much. If the track gauge is 16.5mm you are setting the check gauge at only 14.9mm. If the wheels have a back-to-back of 14.5mm, that leaves only 0.4mm for the flange thickness. A thicker flange risks hitting the nose of the vee and bumping or derailing. Most 00 flanges are indeed thicker than that -- typically 0.7mm.

 

It would be better to use a 1.3mm spacer which will put the check rail at the correct 15.2mm check gauge for most RTR wheels and still leave you with 14.2 check span to clear most RTR back-to-backs. In short with a 1.0mm crossing flangeway you would have created the 00-SF standard with the addition of some mostly harmless gauge-widening at the running rail.

 

But it would be better to achieve the same result using the 00-SF check gauge tool. Gauging a check rail from the adjacent running rail is always wrong and likely to lead to errors. To ensure a check rail is in the proper place, it should be gauged from the opposite running rail, and that's what the check gauge tool is for.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[craigwelsh]

I'm actually coming to the conclusion that its not worth all the extra time and money, I want the finescale look, but I need something that works well with rtr out the box.

My sensible head is saying back to Peco before I waste anything else.

Regards,

Lee.

Even with Peco points there are a few threads on here from people having derailments and being told to check the b2b of their stock. The factory can be a bit lazy sometimes setting this.

 

The finescale look for track means tighter tolerances and if you build track with tighter tolerances then you need to improve the tolerance of your wheels too.

 

Tbh its not that hard to check and slightly adjust the b2b of wheelsets. DOGA finescale does need them a bit wider than the 00 SF Martin is mentioning but compared to P$ these really aren't tight tolerances or something that should need new wheels.

[martin_wynne]

I'm actually coming to the conclusion that its not worth all the extra time and money, I want the finescale look, but I need something that works well with rtr out the box. My sensible head is saying back to Peco before I waste anything else.

Hi Lee,

 

If you modify your check rails as suggested by Brian, using a 1.3mm spacer or the 00-SF check gauge tool, you will be able to run your stock unmodified.

 

Having asymmetric flangeway gaps of 1.3mm one side and 1.0mm the other can cause problems in more complex formations such as 3-way tandem turnouts, diamond-crossings and slips. But it does no harm for an ordinary plain turnout.

 

The great advantage of handbuilt track is that you are not restricted to fixed geometry. You can build turnouts of all shapes and sizes on flowing curves and matching any prototype. If you go back to Peco turnouts you will lose all that.

 

Don't give up yet.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Taz]

Hi Brian,

 

The problem there is that 1.6mm is too much. If the track gauge is 16.5mm you are setting the check gauge at only 14.9mm. If the wheels have a back-to-back of 14.5mm, that leaves only 0.4mm for the flange thickness. A thicker flange risks hitting the nose of the vee and bumping or derailing. Most 00 flanges are indeed thicker than that -- typically 0.7mm.

 

It would be better to use a 1.3mm spacer which will put the check rail at the correct 15.2mm check gauge for most RTR wheels and still leave you with 14.2 check span to clear most RTR back-to-backs. In short with a 1.0mm crossing flangeway you would have created the 00-SF standard with the addition of some mostly harmless gauge-widening at the running rail.

 

But it would be better to achieve the same result using the 00-SF check gauge tool. Gauging a check rail from the adjacent running rail is always wrong and likely to lead to errors. To ensure a check rail is in the proper place, it should be gauged from the opposite running rail, and that's what the check gauge tool is for.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Martin,

 

I agree with you regarding 00-SF, however the time I started track building coincided with the drought in obtaining the 00-SF gauges so I had to go with what was available.

As I said, this approach is used by Norman Solomon and as he is paid to build track for others it can't be a complete non starter (unless he knows of a supply of 1.3mm copper clad sleeper?).

I haven't noticed any problems so far with the limited testing I have done. Maybe with the relative 'slop' in 00 its just not that much of an issue.

However I have so far only built turnouts that will be used in sidings and now that the 00-SF gauges are available again I may purchase some to use when building the mainline turnouts which could be used at speed.

 

Thanks for the advice

[blueeighties]

Just out of interest, At what point in the dvd does Mr Solomon mention the check rail widening? I have it but haven't noticed him mention it. Skipped over a lot of the copperclad stuff.... in there perhaps?

Regards,

lee

[martin_wynne]

(unless he knows of a supply of 1.3mm copper clad sleeper?)

Hi Brian,

 

Not 1.3mm, but the copper-clad supplied by SMP Scaleway is 3/64" (0.047") thick = 1.2mm. Using that would make far more sense than 1.6mm. If Norman was building an SMP kit in the video then that method would begin to make sense.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Taz]

Without watching it myself again I can't exactly tell you.

But he does make a specific point about the gauges he is using being for 00-Fine which is why he uses the copper clad jig to compensate when setting the check rail.

It may very well be in under the copperclad section as that is the first point he builds and a lot of the techniques are universal, whatever your construction method.

[Taz]

Hi Brian,

 

Not 1.3mm, but the copper-clad supplied by SMP Scaleway is 3/64" (0.047") thick = 1.2mm. Using that would make far more sense than 1.6mm. If Norman was building an SMP kit in the video then that method would begin to make sense.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

That would make more sense. I wasn't aware this was available so just assumed he was using C&L supplied components (the turnout he was constructing was using C&L thin sleepers, C&L chairs and C&L rail).

 

I think I will look into getting a new jig made up using 1.3mm material (cheaper than investing in a new set of gauges). Thanks for putting me straight

[Brian Harrap]

Hi all. I started constructing the baseboards for my new layout earlier in the Year, and making good progress with new techniques, (plywood 'sandwich' construction), thought I would use this new found confidence to have a go at building my own track.

After looking at a few different options, I decided on C and L handbuilt points, with their ready made flexi, in 00 gauge.

I started by purchasing a turnout in a bag kit, with the common crossing allready made up. Took a couple of evenings to construct this, seems to run ok. Taught me the basics, gave me a good understanding of what is required for a good running turnout.

Next, I thought I would have a go at a common crossing. Nightmare. Tried filing a vee up, but just found it impossible.Came close to giving up out of sheer frustration. So, purchased a set of pre miled vee and switch rails.

Made a 1-6 jig, out of a small piece of plywood, with copperclad slip glued to it at the correct 1-6 angle, found this reasonably straight forward to solder up. Progressed onto the rest of the crossing, and after a bit of a struggle, finished it. Its not pefect, but runs.

Gauge wise, all I have are 2 roller gauges as supplied in the C and L complete kits. I have searched in vain to see if I can find some 00 gauges to help with the common crossing, and setting the check rails.

I know these are available in EM and P4 from the societies, but why no OO? Just wondering if anyone knows of any that are available.

I have the Norman Solomon 'Right Track' dvd about track construction, he makes it look so easy. Can anyone offer any advice or tips with regards to the construction of the common crossing.

If needs be I will either revert to the kits in a bag, but at the very least would like to make my own up using C and L's milled rail sets. The area I am finding particularly tricky is getting the bends of the wing rails in the correct position.

I do feel that better gauges would help too.

 

Many thanks,

 

Lee

Hello Lee, When I first started building my own pointwork, long before RMW was even a twinkle in Andy's eye and gauges for home builders were still in the distant future I used to set about it by simply rummaging around for what I reckoned was my most coarsest wheelset (tinplate probably) and then my finest, whatever that was at the time. It was then just a case of using the wheelsets themselves as gauges (not as tricky as you might think). It all seems a bit primitive now looking back but it worked just fine and the simplicity deserves not to be overlooked. I still resort to applying a wheelset to the work to see what is really going on with tricky bits of pointwork. Please don't give up, find your own way and once you have mastered hand built track and pointwork and realise how rewarding it is and how good your custom designs look there will be no going back.

Regards, Brian.

Ps Concern yourself not how long it will take to build your own - surely hobbies are for filling in time, not using it efficiently

[blueeighties]

Hi Brian, and hi everyone.Thanks for all the comments and advice, I have been replying from my mobile at work, and haven't had the time to read and digest everything properly until now. So, here we go, yet more questions, please bear with the track constructing newbie.

Half the problem with this, is that I don't have a whole lot of spare time, a 22 month old daughter sees to that very effectively! However, I can grab a couple of hours most evenings, which means it might take a while, but I do actually have some time available to build track.

I do actually find the act of constructing the track very enjoyable, and actually relaxing, so it has that in it's favour! Sometimes I can be a little impatient, building my first couple of turnouts has been quite a steep learning curve.

I have got my self bogged down a bit, wrapped up in standards, what is best, combinations of manufacturers etc.

I initially decided on Exactoscale 00 trackpanels, which match up to Peco code 75 perfectly in rail height and gauge. However, when I made a length up, and joined it up with a Peco point, the differences in sleeper spacing and width between the two were just not 'right' to me.

So, I decided to go back with my original option of handbuilt c and l plastic sleepered pointwork, along with their flexi track, all in 00 gauge.

So, I am looking for the following requirements, and would appreciate everyones comments, you have all been really, really helpful so far.

 

I would like to stick to 'normal' OO scale, I have already purchased a box of 25 yards of flexi track, and doubt I could take it back.

The gauge tools mentioned in an earlier posting on this thread looked perfect for the job, can I use them constructing normal OO pointwork, bearing in mind I will probably go with the suggestion of setting the check rails at 1.3mm,and the wing rails at (I think) the nominal 1mm as per Mr Solomons expert recommendation.

I would like to stick with the wheels that come with my rtr stock, have a back to back gauge,(OO 'normal gauge') so can adjust them if absolutley necessary.

 

If I did throw caution to the wind and decided to go OO finescale, would I also have to build my own plain track, ie not the points? Without realising it, I think I have stuck with OO purely for the convenience of having the option of ready made flexi. I appreciate this is available in EM and P4, but am not aware of it being available in finescale OO. to be honest, until reading the posts on here today, I wasnt aware any other standards other than the normal three, were actually available.

Thank you!

 

Regards,

 

Lee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N