"Get the exact curve"? think it might be a case of laying the timbers and then adding the rails with chairs to the positioned timbers... well.... that's what I think but then again I'm even more of a novice than you. Hopefully others will add to this to provide some competant assistance.

In answer to your question yes you are on the right track (exscuse the pun) with regard to guaging the second rail. Are you hoping for a continuous run? Is that why the radius is critical? On the layout I am building it is on a very slight continuous curve which was achieved by curvibfg the templates. THe rails were then laid to these and guaged accordingly..

If you lay your sleepers in the right place you can then use a template for laying the first rail, or do it free hand, but glue say every fifth chair and when happy with the curve clue the rest down. then using your 3 point track gauge lay the other track again doing say every fifth one. And again when happy glue the rest down.

Another way is to make a straight jig for the sleeper spacings. Fix one rail on while it is straight. then lay the track to the curve you want, and then add second rail.

I'm at about the same stage. I've done 4 straights but haven't sorted out soldering yet, and am plucking up my courage for pointwork. From what I've read, you need to remember your gauge widening, and you'll need 2 of the triangular gauges to do that, 2 points on the outside and single point on the inside, otherwise you get gauge narrowing. Iain Rice's "Approach to Finescale Track Building" is good for demystifying things. I got a copy from one of the specialist booksellers, I forget which.

I think to get the exact curve you'd need to tape the paper down with masking paper and make sure the board is completely steady relative to your centre point, 4 ft away.

Keep posting. I'll be interested to see how it works.

All the best,

Alan

Getting a curve really consistant can be a slight problem, as it is not tht easy to do it by eye. If you are worried, once you have built a bit of track, place a sheet of paper over it and rub a soft pencil along the rail edge (a bit like a brass rubbing - remember them as kids?).

Use this to create a template by cutting along the lines. Then move this through the curve and you will pick up where the curve is too much or too little.

One of the great advantages of handbuilt track is that it flows, as did the prototype. Thus, you do not need to be particularly precious about the exact curves on things. You are more worried about making sure you do not accidently have tight spots that are tighter than the radius your stock will go around.

Similarly the prototype was not that consistant with sleeper spacings. The manuals and text books may have given standards but things were a bit more liberally interpreted on the ground and these things moved, either from tamping machines or the efforts of the maintenance gangs.

The advice about Rice's book is valid too - it is well worth a read even if it mostly deals with ply & rivet trackwork when it comes to the model track. What it says about the prototype is valid for whatever system you use.

I have that book by Mr Rice, could do with reading it again though as it was a long time ago.

The only reason I want to get the curve right is so that I can get the curve right! I'm just unsure how perfect things are supposed to be and whilst doing these tests I thought it'd be good practice. Good to know it is a case of messing about a bit because I thought everything was to be super exact. Will hopefully have more posts soon. Currently what I have so far is just tests, if I can do the curve ok the next task is a simple wagon conversion - probably not compensated or sprung, but just something that rolls.

I want that before I try my two point kits out. I have an Exactoscale kit that'll be 1st due to it being easier (apparenlty) and then a C&L Timber Tracks kit.

Then after that if I'm comfortable enough I'[ll be doing anything I guess. I want to build a new layout or few but am in process of sorting the loft out at the minute. My old layout has been destroyed!

.................. because I thought everything was to be super exact.

Life is too short for this, big time!

As Captain K has said, it is a fallacy to beleive that the prototype was super exact. Maybe on much of it on a high speed line (for its day) but elsewhere things were more liberally interpreted. If you think about it, this stands to reason as getting everything in close tolerance takes time, effort and money. The railways were a commercial venture and thus they only did this where it is necessary.

All railway modelling is about comprimise; for starters we (in the 4mm world, adjust to suit for other scales) only build our stuff at 1/76th of the size and we shove an electric engine in rather than stoke up a fire. The whole point with modelling in P4 is that the person doing it has decided that two comprimises - the gauge between the rails & the wheel profile - is not acceptable to them and they are therefore going to do somethign about it.

Whilst this does create a number of elements flowing from it, largely about how the track is built and how the wheel interfaces with the rail, from then on the decisions as to what to model and to what standard are for the individual. If you have a hunt through the Scalefour website, you will find that there is P4 "connie" thread (ie the Triang childs starter loco from the 1960's) and I have seen both a P4 Thomas and Duck. They are no less P4 because they happen to be from the Reverand Awdry series!

Once have a feel for how P4 works and, particularly, where the important dimensions are, it is about find the level of standard of modelling you want to model at and what bits you think are important. Some do like to get things really spot on, others take a more impressionist stance to what it is they are seeking to achieve. Whilst it may be true that the decision not to accept the comprimise of 16.5mm gauge means that most P4 modellers wish to push their general standard of modelling on a bit, it is not a prerequisit.

So, the classic line of modellers - "its your trainset, do with it what you will" applies!

Fair enough!

Nice informative post.

I'm unsure what standard I want to get other areas, I have thought about using genuine rods and angle cranks for points and signals but that seems an awful ball ache. Unsure about many things actually but one thing you said is very true...

The whole point with modelling in P4 is that the person doing it has decided that two comprimises - the gauge between the rails & the wheel profile - is not acceptable to them and they are therefore going to do somethign about it.

Yeah. I don't hate 00 and have a appreciation and respect for it, but it really has been getting worse, looing at my own stuff, and many brilliantly detailed models of engines and especially layouts being let down by this massive focal point. A focal point that the eye seems drawn to automatically, so much so that I just cannot ignore it anymore. The track and wheels stand out far too much and just shout, "WRONG!" whilst flashing a neon sign advertising the error. As the years went on this just got worse and worse to the point I (in a modelling sense) feel broken. Hand built 00 point work looks much better and I've been fooled at 1st glance a few times thinking it's EM or P4 but even that looks wrong once you get used to it.

I was thinking of buildingmy own track work but that very thought is what drove me to P4, if your going to bother building the track and points then why not just go the whole hog?

Hi P4

It's also a group I'd like to be associated with, for me it carries a certain flair or class that I appreciate. So if I can 'do P4' and not make a complete boob out of it I'll be very happy indeed. I'm not talking about Scalefour people having a 'chip' on their shoulder either, many seem to talk about that and it may be true to a degree for some but the few people I've met in person and pretty much everyone on the forums seem a lovely bunch of people. Like I said, I still like 00 in it's own way. 00 carries advantages that P4 doesn't. More RTR satisfaction and more scene and track can fit in to a given area, plus you can build a layout quicker.

Just hope I can pull this off.