16.5mm traditional OO gauge. Classic steam era pointwork.

[gr.king]

This could have gone in "Handbuilt Track and Templot", it could have gone in "Layout and Track Design", and in the end if the powers that be consider that the location should change then I have no objection. Given that I'm hoping to include / invite ideas and practical demonstrations connected with the goal of better-looking-than-Peco, low-effort (or at least achievable for the reasonable modeller) pointwork for the classic (say 1910-1960) steam era, and that this doesn't have to be confined to handbuilding, then the general heading of Permanent Way seemed most appropriate to me.

 

With a lot of luck, the title, the topic description and the tags will make it clear that I'm aiming to create a topic here only for those who wish to be able to work in the traditional 16.5mm version of OO gauge. There are plenty of other places for discussions of other gauges or other versions of a gauge similar to OO, some established ones looking like thinly disguised publicity campaigns for more newly invented standards and some which appear to me to have hi-jacked a topic clearly entitled "OO gauge". Please respect the intended purpose of this topic and leave those genuinely interested in existing OO gauge and flangeway standards to discuss the intended subject matter of simple cosmetic improvement here without distracting and (intentionally?) disruptive "loaded questions" about other gauges or advocacy of other standards. I have by the way "cleared" this idea of a reserved topic with the webmaster himself.

 

In respect of the possibility of campaigning for more suitable ready made pointwork, it would also be helpful if we could avoid wasteful defeatist comments about the supposed "uselessness" of any generic track on account of the many different historic and regional track standards in the steam era, plus the limitless variations in layout to suit individual sites, things that cannot be duplicated in ready made systems of course. I'm painfully aware that track varied, as are many other interested modellers, but that doesn't mean that we can't have a limited range of points of generally improved appearance, and I wonder whether some of those who snipe at the idea of better-looking generic track simply don't want other modellers to enjoy access to a product that rivals the appearance of their own hand-built pieces of esoteric track.

 

For the moment, I'll throw the floor open to input from any interested party. Time permitting later on, I'll try to import one or two bits and pieces of my own from other locations to set the ball rolling if necessary.

 

Although not, in my view, going quite far enough since they don't address the jarring issue of too many timbers of far too small a size, these links do show that something can be done with the Peco product to make it less toy like. I suggest that much more can be done, either by us, or by Peco, and I do not believe that they would have to invest mega-money to do it. 

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/84892-bending-proprietary-turnouts/?p=1437234

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/75560-cosmetic-alterations-to-peco-code-75-points/

[Gordon A]

Certainly the British 00 modeller needs an improved generic track system that reflects the improvement of out of the box produced by manufacturers.

 

I have seen a number of 00 layouts that have been seriously let down by the use of Peco / rtr track.

 

The track does not match the effort and quality put into the scenery, including buildings and stock.

 

In most cases the use of code 75 rail is a major improvement. The next step is to improve the sleeper spacing and size.

 

Getting the sleeper spacing right will improve the look of the track.

 

The main question in this area is do you compromise on between the sleeper and the 00 gauge?

 

C&L / Exactoscale products have done a lot to improve the look of 00 trackwork, but their point work needs some basic building skills to assemble.

 

Are there enough 00 modellers out their who have the commitment, money and space to create a realistic looking layout to make it commercially worthwhile to produce realistic looking 00 point and crossing work?

 

For example is it worth the effort and cost to try and produce realistic 2ft radius points?

 

Gordon A

Bristol

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I offer fullest support. The long established practise in soldered track shows what is possible, and the moulded base SMP point kit makes up into a unit of the standard I would look for in general appearance of the timbering.

 

Outline spec. Bullhead code 75 rail, live crossing only, continuous point blade and no over centre spring, metal check rails, robustness equivalent Peco streamline. Integrated or separate purpose-designed slow motion motor, with any attachment arrangement not compromising the appearance.

[2750Papyrus]

I sympathise fully with the objectives of this thread but fear that, for whatever reason, there are vested interests in opposition.

[BlackRat]

I am surprised that Peco has never taken up the mantle, despite comments made by the company originator, back In The 70's I believe?

 

Bearing in mind the huge range of scales that they produce for, and such eclectic items like steel sleepers track, 009 crazy track and normal etc etc etc.

 

Perhaps a company like Oxford might have an interest, or DJM as they are fresh into the market, and hopefully bring some new ideas to the table.

[Richard Lee]

This would be a very big improvement for ordinary OO.  In my opinion, sleeper and timbering spacing is one of the most noticable features of model railway track.  At the moment, you can get SMP, C&L and Exactoscale flexi-track, all of which look a big improvement over track designed for HO.  The big problem is what points to use with it.  The options are make your own, buy ready-made hand-made such as Marcway, or use Peco Code 75.  Making your own takes time, skill and frequently money.  Buying ready-made hand-made tends to be a bit costly unless your layout is very small.  Peco Code 75 points tend to work well, but don't look quite right.

 

The point raised by Gordon A about 2' radius points is interesting.  I don't use them myself, and would be interested to know how many people do use them.  On the other hand, if a new track system missed out a size of points that many people wanted to use, it would reduce its appeal.

 

I think that people who want perfectly correct track for their period and railway company would continue to make it themselves, and may well use different gauges. 

[gr.king]

I offer fullest support. The long established practise in soldered track shows what is possible, and the moulded base SMP point kit makes up into a unit of the standard I would look for in general appearance of the timbering.

 

Outline spec. Bullhead code 75 rail, live crossing only, continuous point blade and no over centre spring, metal check rails, robustness equivalent Peco streamline. Integrated or separate purpose-designed slow motion motor, with any attachment arrangement not compromising the appearance.

 

You might say that's quite a high spec, one which I'd obviously be happy to accept were it on offer. I wonder if a an adapted compromise design using as many existing parts and machines as possible would be more of a realistic expectation from a reluctant established manufacturer?

[gr.king]

I sympathise fully with the objectives of this thread but fear that, for whatever reason, there are vested interests in opposition.

 

If you, or somebody else is fairly sure that vested interests are sabotaging attempts to obtain progress, and if you actually know who specifically is sticking the spanner in the works (and there has been some private comment to suggest that certain key individuals may be the problem here) then I wish somebody would be brave enough to publicly identify the culprit, without of course putting this website in a legally tricky position. It has been suggested to me that a very significant opponent of progress is hiding behind some very unusual legal protection, so tread carefully.

[gr.king]

 

 

 

Are there enough 00 modellers out their who have the commitment, money and space to create a realistic looking layout to make it commercially worthwhile to produce realistic looking 00 point and crossing work?

 

For example is it worth the effort and cost to try and produce realistic 2ft radius points?

 

Gordon A

Bristol

 

Two good questions. I hope the answer to first one is yes, and that the numbers of "serious and discerning" modellers keenly buying such track would be boosted by those who would certainly take a better looking track system in preference to the one they currently accept, once they could see that something better was available.

 

The answer to second question about the 2ft radius points is that I doubt the viability. I don't think such short ones would look at all right, but plenty of modellers as opposed to 'players with toy trains' already go for 3 foot absolute minimum radius for points.

 

 

 

[Dominion]

Graeme, interesting topic.  I am in progress on building a replacement layout now. I would love it if there were a better looking UK OO product commercially available.  

 

I rejected current Peco products this time for a bundle of reasons. Yes sleeper width and spacing, but also pressed and hinged blades, and geometry. The modern peco code 100 without the heavy over centre spring apparatus looks better already than the prior product, but I have not seen the same upgrade in code 75 yet. I also rejected Peco for the tight radius on the slips.

 

I liked the solid blades, greater choice of geometry, and large radii and more shallow crossing angle of Tillig (they have 3 different HO ranges) but in the end rejected it because of the HO sleeper spacing.

 

I have currently decided to hand build, and as I would hand build I decided to go with OO-SF and bull-head in chairs. However, I am doing all the  fiddle yards first, and I think it is in the forlorn hope that perhaps something ready to lay and better looking than the current products may be launched. My plan calls for over 70 turn outs, diamond crossings and slips in the scenic section, which will take me a very very long time to build.  So if something became available that was appreciably better than today, even with some compromises, and straight OO, even if not OO-SF, I would certainly look at it, and likely use it where the geometry worked for me. I have flexed Peco turnouts and diamonds and slips before, as "Robert the Devil" advocates, so I would plan to leverage the offered geometry as much as possible. It would be compatible with what ever I had already laid in OO-SF from a running perspective.  So if someone decides to do it, I would very likely use it.  Tom

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

You might say that's quite a high spec, one which I'd obviously be happy to accept were it on offer. I wonder if an adapted compromise design using as many existing parts and machines as possible would be more of a realistic expectation from a reluctant established manufacturer?

I am firmly of the opinion that the established manufacturer isn't going to touch it. If we are to get such a product, it needs an outside disruptor to enter the market. Since this means new tooling, then do it right, for best appearance.

 

That will be the way to win the sales too in my view. Not an 'improved' product but 'as good as possible' so that it is an easy and obvious choice: by analogy with what happened in 1999, as big a step change as the WD 2-8-0 represented to the contemporary tender drive 8F. We endured the 'hair shirt brigade's' 40 year misinformation programme that the UK market wouldn't support RTR models made to what had long been the baseline to be considered as a model in HO. Bachmann totally destroyed that myth. Pity they didn't go for track at the same time...

[The Stationmaster]

This is a very interesting area and an approach I wholeheartedly support (with all 10 of my thumbs).  We currently inhabit a strange model railway world where people are happy to spend £100+ on a loco and then cut bits off it or add bits to it and then repaint it to achieve what they want if they can't build from scratch due to either lack of time or skill.  The same people equally happily spend £30 plus on a single coach and so on.  While 'happy' is a term open to interpretation it at least implies that there are modellers who are prepared to spend to get what they want yet - Marcway apart - there is no r-t-p pointwork which falls into that sort of market category but there seem to be repeated requests for it.

 

Among all this let's think too about what manufacturing technology ought to plain line able to deliver - one piece switch rails shouldn't be a problem in Code 75, Graham Farish did it in Code 100 50 years ago, moulding Code 75 rail into a plastic base is done weekly if not daily in Mr PECO's factory, while Code 75 track as plain line has been available off the shelf for over 40 years.  Note the timescales I mentioned - all of that was 1960s/70s manufacturing technology, wind back the same time prior to then and 4mm scale mass manufacture wasn't even in manufacturers' dreams.

 

So either we - the potential market - are not shouting loudly enough enough or 'someone' is for whatever reason blocking progress forward from the technology of more than a generation ago.  I don't know which but I'm more than happy to add my voice to the cries of the potential market and will cheerfully outline my shopping list in full but am happy to start with left and right hand 'ordinary' turnouts on 3 ft radius and a  single slip to match.  If 'someone is going to do it let them at least start with some really 'common user' items which would suit many wayside stations etc.

[MikeTrice]

I think the first question to resolve is exactly which standards such a range should follow. Define "traditional 16.5mm version of OO".

[47137]

Looking at eHattons web site, I sorted their stock of Peco track with lowest level stock items first.

http://www.ehattons.com/stocklist/1000407/1000588/1000687/0/Peco_Products_OO_Gauge_1_76_Scale_Track_Code_100_Streamline_/prodlist.aspx?sort=7&pageid=1

 

Having done this, if we assume eHattons know their market and keep economical stock levels (I think this is reasonable) then they appear to expect to sell roughly equal quantities of small and medium radius points, and rather fewer large radius points, Wyes, crossings and slips.

 

If small and radius points are the most popular, this tallies with most of the layouts I see which use Peco points.

 

Small radius is 2 feet. Being designed for H0 scale, this really ought to be about 12% bigger for 00 to give a similar appearance with a train running over it, say 27 inches, but this is still rather tight aesthetically. The medium points are 3 feet radius, but I've often found them just that bit too bit to fit into the space available. So I suggest a 30 inch flexible wye point, built with a flexible base like some Tillig points, able to be curved to fit the site. This one product would form the cornestone of the range.

 

I don't know how big the market is, but I suspect it is actually smaller than the worldwide markets for steel-sleepered track or 0-16.5, hence my suggestion of just one point. At least to begin with.

 

- Richard.

[gr.king]

For the sake of mass market acceptance, would it not be sensible to avoid going for significantly tighter flangeways than the Peco version of code 75 which has already gained acceptance among plenty of modellers who don't go far beyond RTR stock? Markits, Gibson OO and Scalelink wheels on hand built items do tend also to run acceptably on "Peco-fine" standards.

 

Go finer and the product loses its user-friendliness for "average" modellers = less return on investment for the maker, and/or higher prices for those who do choose to use it.

[gr.king]

 I suggest a 30 inch flexible wye point,

 

- Richard.

 

Ambiguous terminology? Do you mean a point whose divergence is such that if one road were straight, the other would have 30 inch radius? Even that would be little use to those who wish to stick to 36" medium radius. It's worse still if you mean 30 inch radius for both sides of the wye, since if you then straighten one road the other becomes dramatically tightly curved and it's a very short point overall.

 

What may look okay with Tillig mini-sleepers won't look the same with the bigger ones that OO needs. I think anything shorter than effectively 3 foot radius (R or L) will look unsatisfactory.

[hayfield]

What both a minefield and a wide range differing opinions you have opened up. Nothing wrong with what I would describe as 00 "universal" gauge, which is something which encompasses 00BF/DOGA intermediate/Peco standards (basically 16.5 gauge with 1.25 mm check gaps)

 

For me 00 track should have sleepers and sleeper spacing nearer to 4 mm scale than 3.5 mm scale, then for steam era its bullhead rain in chairs

 

There is a choice for plain track with SMP & C&L doing flexi track and you have Exactoscale fast track bases. Turnouts and crossings much harder with Marcway soldered construction, or s/h GEM 3' radius points and crossings, Formway did from memory 24" radius points. Marcway do an easy build 36" radius kit

 

Not everyone has either the time or ability to build their own turnouts an crossings, but lots when pushed are able to make them.

 

3D printing may come to the rescue Andy ID is is making great strides in this area and this may be the next cottage industry within the hobby

[t-b-g]

I have posted these photos before but I hope they give some idea of what sort of effect can be obtained using OO gauge at 16.5mm allowing pretty much all modern RTR stuff to run through it.

 

OK, this was handbuilt but if a RTR one or even a moulded/printed base for people to thread their own rails through, then I think it would be several streets ahead of the appearance of Peco points.

 

 

They were built on plans from the EMGS, shrunk down on the computer until the track gauge was reduced to 16.5mm. So they are a bit of a hybrid scale/gauge combination.

 

I know Andy ID of this forum has been doing some 3D printed point bases in various sleepering scales and spacings and some of his come pretty close to matching my own thoughts.

 

What nobody can do is to produce accurate scale 4mm standard gauge track using 16.5mm gauge. So some compromise is bound to be involved. The most important thing to me is the proportions and a shrunk down EM point requires little alteration to flangeways but preserves the proportions of sleepers and rails in a way that works for me.

 

I would suggest for starters a straightforward 1:6 LH and RH. Anything smaller (ie a 1:5)  and you are down to industrial or main line trains looking as if they are on a trainset and if you are happy with main line trains going round really tight curves then a more "scale" looking track isn't going to make you layout look  any better than it would with Peco.. A 1:7 is better appearance wise but starts to make for a large turning circle on a continuous run layout. 

 

 

[47137]

Ambiguous terminology? Do you mean a point whose divergence is such that if one road were straight, the other would have 30 inch radius? Even that would be little use to those who wish to stick to 36" medium radius. It's worse still if you mean 30 inch radius for both sides of the wye, since if you then straighten one road the other becomes dramatically tightly curved and it's a very short point overall.

 

What may look okay with Tillig mini-sleepers won't look the same with the bigger ones that OO needs. I think anything shorter than effectively 3 foot radius (R or L) will look unsatisfactory.

The Wye point might be 42 inches each side, to make sure it didn't drop below 36 inches for most applications. But making it so large, the market will get smaller, and it won't be suitable for micro layouts (which I like!)

 

Edit:

Chewing this over, Tillig do seem to have a manufacturing process which allows runs of products with quite small markets - witness their dual 16.5 / 9 mm gauge products. So maybe they can help. Perhaps the starting range should be two items - a pair of left- and right- hand 36-inch points; or a large and a medium radius wye. I like the idea of flexible points; but I'm sure others don't. But if it was a pair of left- and right- hand points, I'm sure the RMWeb would be getting accounts of modifying them to fit curved locations.

 

- Richard.

[gr.king]

Tony's shrunken EM point above shows exactly the sort of thing that is achievable and I'm sure that a seriously interested manufacturer could emulate most of its features at a reasonable price.

 

Here are couple of bits already posted in other places but repeated here as being, I believe, of relevance. Sorry there's so much to read:

 

 

A few years ago I wrote in to BRM urging modellers to get together to press Peco to produce OO points with more typically 1920-1960 British proportions, at least in terms of the length/width/spacing of the moulded timber base. In due course, a response from Peco appeared to me to claim that there would be far more involved in achieving the desired appearance than a simple revision of the moulded base and that, of course, they therefore would find any such change wholly uneconomic. As a rather belated direct challenge to Peco's assertion I have at last got around to extensively altering (where possible) and/or replacing the moulded base of a Peco Code 75 point, in plastic, so as to achieve sizes and spacings of timbers far more in-keeping with (for the sake of argument) SMP Scaleway standards. None of the rails, the bonds or the switch have had to be modified, and the flat-bottom rail has been disguised by the fitting of some trimmed C & L plastic chairs or in some places (especially over the existing moulded Peco rail clips) just little pieces of plain plastic to suggest "chairs". In consequence of the way I've built the replacement sections of base, my sample has clearance between the inter-sleeper webs and the foot of the rail. I accept that this clearance might not be practical in a mass-produced Peco moulded base. I also accept that the projecting keys moulded into the individual C & L chairs would probably be impractical in a single-piece moulding too. I do however feel that I have demonstrated that an upgrade simply to achieve "proportionate" appearance of the timbering would NOT require complete redesign of the Peco point along new lines. I suggest that it would also be possible for Peco (or an enterprising competitor) to mould the base with representations of rail-clips for the fans of flat-bottom track but also produce and sell sprues of dedicated "chairs" to fit directly over the shallower clips, at least on the outer faces of the rails, in order to give a bullhead-like appearance. Obviously this wouldn't satisfy the ultra pedantic who would rather spend hours, weeks, months or even years building exact replicas of esoteric pieces of pointwork (or in fact merely arguing about how to do it without actually building anything) but I strongly believe that "better looking Peco"  WOULD satisfy a very substantial number of OO modellers, including many who find the current Peco track bases unacceptably toy-like. Bear in mind too, that regardless of all of the theoretical arguments about the faults in Peco crossing, flangeway and other dimensions relevant to actual running, in most situations Peco points ACTUALLY DO THE JOB.

I don't for one minute intend to modify further points in this way, at least not at this stage, nor do I suggest that this is a viable method for use by most modellers. It is far too time consuming. I'm simply trying to strengthen the case for saying that Peco could and should do something along these lines. I did have some initial thoughts that resin copies of the new sections of timbering might be an option, but while I've managed to make a resin copy of the section that only has slide chairs I've now dismissed the idea of dealing with other parts of the point base in that way. The resin simply doesn't have the qualities that would be needed in order to produce split-chairs capable of clipping in place around the foot of the rail, especially as some timbers have four chairs.

Here are some images to help to explain what I've done.

This first one shows the layout of the timbers in the modified point, a piece of SMP Scaleway alongside for comparison, and the discarded pieces of crowded slim Peco timbering. Where I've retained the Peco material I've widened and lengthened the timbers using added strips of plastikard. These have been added on one of both sides of each timbers as best suited my attempts to make sizes and spacings look reasonable. In on or two places in the group of retained timbers around the crossing I've added material to one side of the timber and trimmed material from the opposite side.

Just the modified point with the discarded pieces alongside and inverted.

 

Further ther comparison with sleeper sizes and spacings in plain SMP Scaleway>

Comparisons with a Peco point retaining its original diminutive crowded timbers (bottom in both pictures), in this case a Code 100 item as that is all that I had, but the spacing of the timbers is much the same for an untouched Code 75 Peco point.

The clash between Peco point timbering and plain Scaleway.

Again, modified top, SMP middle, original Peco bottom.

General views.

I feel we really ought to pestering Mr Pritchard and his team relentlessly for something like this, until they listen. What's the point to exquisite locomotives and rolling stock running around on track that is merely a parody of the real thing?

 

Alternatively, starting from PCB sleepers and rail:

 

I've so far only constructed a test piece to validate techniques. The two main challenges were:

1. Finding a way to make a mould for some two-piece cosmetic chairs in resin, such that they would cast up faithfully without too much difficulty and would not be too tall for the application.

2. Soldering rail to PCB in such a way as to get a strong joint but leaving the sides of the rail completely free of solder, since I wanted a nice clean sleeper top and rail side to allow the chairs to be glued in place neatly and without fuss.

 

 

The Chairs

Although I have some leftover C&L chairs, scrounged from a good friend, I decided not to blatantly rip-off the makers by copying those in resin, even in modified "split" form. They are that bit chunkier than the SMP representations of chairs. As well as possibly aggravating the height problem, that chunkiness makes it necessary to give them a good trim around what might be described as the "heel" of each half chair, otherwise they won't nestle in to the angle between a PCM sleeper and a directly soldered-on rail. also, the protruding key on the C&L chairs, while a nice touch, is tricky to cast nicely in a copy and doesn't assist with matching the appearance to Scaleway flexible track. IF the only way forward were to use the C&L chairs as patterns, I'd probably have trimmed the keys off anyway.
An attempt at copying the SMP chairs seemed a nice idea, but it was obvious to me that I wouldn't be able to cut chairs from sleepers, leaving just the thinnest possible base, in order to use them as masters. It looked a potentially tricky business too to take impressions of the chairs while still on the sleepers. The jaws of the complete chair are close together, leaving little space for moulding rubber between the jaws, a recipe for weakness in the mould encourage early disintegration, or retention of air bubbles with consequent failure of the rubber to form a proper mould in the first place. Worse still, below that narrow are between the jaws is a square hole in the sleeper with significant undercuts.
I wasted some time initially putting little chips of plastic into some of those holes in the sleepers, with only a half-developed plan for separating the chairs into inner and outer halves before making a mould. I then realised that the task was easier than I had imagined, there being no need to fill those holes. All that was required was to cut through the sleeper with a sharp blade, tight against the "heel" of each half chair. This eliminates the longitudinal webs linking the sleepers and leaves three major parts of each sleeper. These three parts can then be arranged with a broad 40 thou thick strip of plasticard in place of the original web, giving a nice wide gap between the chair jaws and no hole for rubber to enter. as you can see in the pictures above, I made a little test mould using just eight sleepers stuck closely together on the base of a moulding box. The (pink) rubber captured the details of the chairs nicely, although it did invade the narrow gaps between the sleeper sections. That was no problem as the unwanted narrow strips of rubber were easily trimmed from the intended flat face of the mould with sharp straight clippers.

The Soldering

The only method I was ever taught/shown for soldering up the joints on copperclad track involved applying the flux, then the iron and the solder, to the clean rail and sleeper, with those parts held in contact. This always results in some sort of blob of solder being left in the angle between the sleeper and the foot of the rail. It is frequently suggested that his blob looks a bit like a chair - a big stretch of the imagination. I found that I could get a blob-free result without too much trouble, subject to a little preparation. I tinned the foot only of the rail before use, and tinned each patch of copper cladding where the rail would sit. With the rail and sleeper pressed together, the faintest additional smear of flux paste on the sleeper (not the rail), and the close application of a hot iron (with no deliberate use of any extra solder) it was possible to sweat the joint together, stopping as soon as a small meniscus of solder formed in the angle. No solder creep up the rail sides occurred. either I was lucky, or the technique was just the job!

After washing off the greasy flux residue with white spirit the trimmed resin chairs were easy enough to stick in place with runny superglue.

The height of the chairs was still a little more than I had hoped it would be, so I trimmed the outside parts down to expose the sides of the head of the rail. The inner parts of each chair were also trimmed down to provide wheel flange clearance. If and when I make a mould for a "serious" number of chairs I can ensure that the master parts are trimmed to give the desired height of cast resin chair automatically.

Currently, I'm happy that this technique represents a good compromise between ease of construction and satisfactory final strength and appearance. The real challenge now is to make a success of some pointwork using the same methods.

 

Coming back to the issue of what size and what spacing the sleepers ought to be, the out and out enthusiasts for best looking British style track will no doubt (correctly) advocate that HO scale to match the gauge would be an absolute minimum, and that something closer to actual 4mm scale sizes would be preferable. I'm wary however of the features within the track starting to look disproportionate in the reverse way to current Peco if the sleepers get too wide and too far apart to suit the narrowed gauge. Taking SMP Scaleway as something that I would consider to be good looking example, the sleeper spacing is 9mm, which for some track standards in the earlier half of the 20th Century is about 3.5mm scale, i.e. in proper proportion to the gauge, although the sleepers are 32 mm long which is on the long side for HO but not long enough for 4mm scale in full. That extra length can however be handy as it helps to use up some of the disproportionately large six-foot way between parallel tracks! My measurement suggest current Peco standards to be a scant 7.3mm sleeper spacing (too small even for British style HO!) and a sleeper length of a little less than 30mm. So, without regard to rail section and chairs even Peco code 75 pointwork therefore looks at odds with SMP (or C & L) plain track. Even when disguised by weathering, good ballasting and addition of false chairs, if I look along a mixed track formation I can immediately see that the length of the sleepers in particular is of two conflicting varieties.

 

Now here's a controversial idea, but one that might just make a change a bit more palatable for a leading manufacturer of an entrenched track system. Why not revise the current code 75 point designs to get to a half-way house as far as the sleeper bases are concerned? Take the timbers up to a length that would actually match plain track with 31mm sleepers, pitch them at 8.2mm and make them no wider that the sleepers in current plain SMP track, rather than going to the 4mm width usual for PCB sleeper strip. Keep the existing investment in the rails and the overall geometry. Offer a set of neatly moulded low profile chairs to go over the flat-bottom rail clips to at least give a mock bullhead appearance. I'm inclined to think that the discrepancies between the proportions of the timbering versus either SMP plain track or Peco plain track would be small enough to make a new crop of "discerning" customers happy enough to buy the pointwork while leaving the less discerning buyers with points that still seem a fair enough match to the old Peco versions....

 

I'll wait for the incoming venom regarding that suggestion!

 

The not-quite-full-scale sleeper spacing would however preserve the appearance of the so called 2 foot radius points beloved of some, although I think t-b-g is right in a way about the futility of better sleeper base proportions on acutely curved pointwork used purely for cramming too much track into an unrealistically small space.

 

I would think of something equivalent to the Peco standard "5 foot" and "3 foot" radius right and left basic points as being the place to start for an improved version. Having tried the point-bending technique described by 4479 and others, finding it so much easier than I'd imagined that I was truly amazed, I can see no need for indulgence in the extra cost of tooling for curved points. The "5 foot" type will curve to a near-identical geometry, and other specially desired shapes too. Why would any manufacturer want to chance his/her arm on costlier slips and so on before seeing success with the basics?

 

Final comment for now: Even the track that Peco make for the HOm market, which surely cannot be a vast customer base, gives the small minority of British modllers who work in 3mm scale the option of a 12mm gauge track system that in my view looks far better proportioned in the sleeper base than the track that Peco offer to the "big" OO market. Why should we put up with very second-rate treatment?

[2750Papyrus]

How about approaching Tillig and C&L to manufacture 36" radius LH and RH turnouts in code 75 BH rail with 4mm scale sleeper spacing and length scaled to 16.5mm gauge, standards generally similar to Peco code 75?  I would also suggest the possibility of crowd funding to mitigate their risk.

[47137]

. . .

 

Now here's a controversial idea, but one that might just make a change a bit more palatable for a leading manufacturer of an entrenched track system. Why not revise the current code 75 point designs to get to a half-way house as far as the sleeper bases are concerned? Take the timbers up to a length that would actually match plain track with 31mm sleepers, pitch them at 8.2mm and make them no wider that the sleepers in current plain SMP track, rather than going to the 4mm width usual for PCB sleeper strip. Keep the existing investment in the rails and the overall geometry. Offer a set of neatly moulded low profile chairs to go over the flat-bottom rail clips to at least give a mock bullhead appearance. I'm inclined to think that the discrepancies between the proportions of the timbering versus either SMP plain track or Peco plain track would be small enough to make a new crop of "discerning" customers happy enough to buy the pointwork while leaving the less discerning buyers with points that still seem a fair enough match to the old Peco versions....

 

I'll wait for the incoming venom regarding that suggestion!

A Peco small radius point has 24 timbers, a medium radius one has 29. In my copy of a medium radius point, I used copperclad strips the same width as Peco, but spread further apart so there are 26 of the them instead of 29.

 

The idea was to make for a lighter appearance. If this was done on a small radius point, it would start to look bit industrial or (with the wrong train) toy-like, and choosing broader (4 mm wide) timbers might have the same effect.

 

On my model, the wing rails are too long for the geometry. But if we accept the use of subterfuge and deception, their extended length is representative of a mainline point with a smaller angle. This works for me, where half of this is usually inside a tunnel. The spacing I used perms in with Peco plain track gapped out to 9 mm pitch, and I think it would suit SMP too.

 

- Richard.

[Pacific231G]

This is just a thought but, looking at some SMP plastic based point kits I have, they don't seem that far from being feasible as an assembled product (as of course scaleway plain track still is) I have sometimes wondered whether if the original Scale Model Productions had gone that extra distance and made the points available ready to (carefully) lay they might not have opened up a much larger market for their products (maybe Marcway still could)

[MikeTrice]

There was also this topic a while back started by our erstwhile leader: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/23129-improving-peco-code-75/

[martin_wynne]

This existing topic is 57 pages long and on the very same subject as this one:

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79416-poll-ready-to-lay-oo-track-and-pointwork/

 

 

C&L now have ready-to-use 00 turnouts listed on their web site, although very expensive and in limited supplies.

 

DCC Concepts are planning a range of ready-to-use 00 pointwork.

 

 

Martin.