16.5mm traditional OO gauge. Classic steam era pointwork.

[gr.king]

Unfortunately, 57 pages of discussion over two years do not seem to me to have produced any real agreement, but have provided ample opportunity for those whose real agenda is promote gauge narrowing, which some of us do not want. 

 

It sounds like the DCC Concepts plans have been in the pipeline rather a long time too. If the come to fruition, in the right way, that will be marvellous, but as far as many of us are concerned OO gauge is 16.5mm and cannot be any other figure, so if DCC Concepts have been "got at" to adopt and promote the narrower gauge their product may not find wide acceptance.

[martin_wynne]

as far as many of us are concerned OO gauge is 16.5mm and cannot be any other figure

 

Is this some form of religious belief? It's no wonder some topics get so heated. Religion isn't allowed on RMweb.

 

I still remember my Hornby-Dublo 3-rail trains as a boy. On the end of the blue wagon boxes it said: 00 Gauge - 5/8".

 

Martin.

[LNER4479]

Am I happy with the overall appearance of my layout created from the standard Peco pointwork range? Yes

As a builder of large mainline layouts will I ever build points of my own? No. (life’s too short)

Would I buy ready-to-use points from a ‘classic steam era pointwork’ (as per words in thread title) range? Of course I would!

 

I agree with the analysis of the Hattons sale of Peco points in that short radius and medium points are probably the most popular in the range. I also suspect that the vast majority of the purchasers care little about the detailed appearance of the trackwork – they’re just interested in creating a model railway to enjoy watching trains run (and there’s nothing wrong with that!) Judging by the mangled state of some of these points in the second hand rummage boxes some even struggle to do that.

 

How many have contributed to this thread? 15 people perhaps? 15 people who are interested in the detailed appearance of the trackwork … set against thousands of Peco customers  who either care little about the appearance or for whom the HO appearance and style is exactly what they want (we should continually remind ourselves that the majority of Peco customers are not from the UK). I agree therefore that it is unlikely that Peco will be the solution to this issue.

 

I think that therefore has us looking at a niche market between mass market Peco and those who are prepared to build their own pointwork. Will a niche market manufacturer be able to match Peco’s prices based on mass volume sales? Would you spent £50 (say) to buy a plain point and £100 (say) to buy a slip point from a ‘classic steam era’ range? (I wrote this before the posting just appeared above re the price of C&L points)

 

It also occurs to me that, looking around exhibition halls and magazine articles that the proportion of ‘classic steam era’ layouts are steadily diminishing (an inevitable consequence of the march of time as many folks ‘build what they remember’). Whilst I and others will always be drawn by that era, would not other modellers appreciate a ‘classic steam /diesel transition era’ range of ‘proper looking’ OO RTR trackwork (ie flat bottom track on concrete sleepers)? Or even for our contemporary brethren ‘proper looking’ steel sleeper track or pointwork with concrete sleepers?

 

So, having appeared to be unsupportive of this noble quest may I re-iterate that I would be interested in purchasing from such a range!

 

In terms of the ability to flex points, how about the webbing beneath being moulded with easily cut pips between the sleepers at the appropriate locations so those that want to can easily achieve this?

 

For me, I’d start with medium radius points of both hands and see what the response is.

 

In the meantime, I'm quite happy with this:

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

As I have recently written on my own long thread on this subject, do take a look at what Andy ID is achieving with 3D printing of turnout bases. This offers the possibility of "kits" that will only really require the rail to be threaded into them and even bespoke kits to allow folk to have points on curves etc.

 

He's not aiming to do it commercially but it is surely within the capability of a UK artisan to take forward further.

 

The other thing that I would ask people to get away from is discussion of radius. It's not the right starting place. To follow prototype practice, we need to be talking about the crossing angle    (1 in 6, 1 in 8, etc). Once one gets away from the 8' x 4' "roundy", there really is not much need for tight radius pointwork (less than A5) at all.

[BRealistic]

As one who butchers peco points and re-spaces plain track sleepers... I'm certainly supportive!  

 

I'd also be happy with non-metal check rails, which get the rust treatment anyway, and out of preference, I'd go for sleepers of peco thickness.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Is this some form of religious belief? It's no wonder some topics get so heated. Religion isn't allowed on RMweb.

 

I still remember my Hornby-Dublo 3-rail trains as a boy. On the end of the blue wagon boxes it said: 00 Gauge - 5/8".

 

Martin.

 

If we were to take a track gauge and measure all round the layouts of these folk who believe that OO is and must be 16.5mm, I suspect we would find many places, especially on tight curves, where they are not conforming to their own standards.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Unfortunately, 57 pages of discussion over two years do not seem to me to have produced any real agreement, but have provided ample opportunity for those whose real agenda is promote gauge narrowing, which some of us do not want. 

 

It sounds like the DCC Concepts plans have been in the pipeline rather a long time too. If the come to fruition, in the right way, that will be marvellous, but as far as many of us are concerned OO gauge is 16.5mm and cannot be any other figure, so if DCC Concepts have been "got at" to adopt and promote the narrower gauge their product may not find wide acceptance.

 

I don't have any axe to grind about the standards but I have found the discussion over most of those 57 pages very helpful. I don't expect everybody to agree on anything but especially not something like OO which is such a compromise anyway.

 

Most people who want ready-to-lay pointwork (or easy kits for that matter) will be using mostly ready-to-run locos and rolling stock or possibly some kits fitted with Romford/Markit wheels. So any pointwork has to accommodate them. Does one stick with 16.5mm throughout and have wider flangeways? Or does one go for 16.2mm at the crossing and narrower flangeways? One is "correct" (within the parameters of a gauge that is already 12.5% out) and the other looks "correct". Since the whole need to move away from Peco HO track is about appearance, logic would seem to be with the one that looks best.

[gr.king]

I still very definitely believe that there is a mass market for a revised code 75 system with, albeit compromised, improved proportions for the timbering. A system that would suit nearly all mainstream modellers and could therefore have acceptable unit prices.

Why am I against 16.2 gauge? Well I think it is getting just that bit too fine and too clever to ensure the necessary degree of retrospective compatibility. Something with thickish flanges will come a cropper, sooner or later. Also, consider a long wheelbase 8 or 10 coupled hand-built loco, ultra detailed, painstakingly set up to give it just enough sideplay on its various axles to get comfortably around a 3 foot radius, including passage through crossings and check-rails. Reduce the gauge and suddenly there's not quite enough clearance any more. I for one would not want to have to strip down an otherwise perfectly satisfactory chassis just to accommodate and un-necessary tweak to the gauge.

 

So my preference, and hence the title of this topic: 16.5mm gauge.

[martin_wynne]

Why am I against 16.2 gauge?

 

What does "against" mean? A track gauge is a dimension, you can't be "for" or "against" it.

 

All you can do is use it, or not use it. Your decision. Your choice. Nobody minds or much cares either way.

 

Martin.

[gordon s]

I have deliberately stayed out of this topic as you specifically say the thread is about 16.5mm gauge and I certainly do not want to be accused of spurious arguments in what is a perfectly worthwhile topic, but please extend a similar courtesy to those of us who do build in 00-SF by not make statements that are completely untrue.

 

Why am I against 16.2 gauge? Well I think it is getting just that bit too fine and too clever to ensure the necessary degree of retrospective compatibility. Something with thickish flanges will come a cropper, sooner or later. Also, consider a long wheelbase 8 or 10 coupled hand-built loco, ultra detailed, painstakingly set up to give it just enough sideplay on its various axles to get comfortably around a 3 foot radius, including passage through crossings and check-rails. Reduce the gauge and suddenly there's not quite enough clearance any more. I for one would not want to have to strip down an otherwise perfectly satisfactory chassis just to accommodate and un-necessary tweak to the gauge.

 

None of that is true.  I also have a 2-8-8-8-2 loco, but here's a 4-12-2 for starters.  How big do you want to go.....:-)

 

 

Found it.  Here's the 2-8-8-8-2....

 

 

I forgot about hand built loco's.  I have an 02 that is 2-8-0, but here is a professionally built (Graham Varley) K1 running on Markits wheels and a Comet chassis.  This has been built with very little side play in the chassis, but once again shows that your statement is clearly untrue.

 

Your thread will gain a lot of support (including some of us that build our own track) if you concentrate on your own particular needs and don't take pot shots at other variants of 00 that perform really well.

 

It may not be for you and that's fine.  Please extend the same courtesy to others.

 

[James Harrison]

I am interested in a more scale-like track; were it available I would be amongst the first in the queue to get hold of it. 

 

Speaking purely personally, of all the things wrong with RTR track the factors that I find most unacceptable are the sleepers and the lack of chairs.  (Oddly the flatbottom rail I can live with).  

A proper British-spec steam age RTR track range would be great!- but reading this thread (and others like it) makes it clear that a compromise will likely have to be drawn somewhere.  Again speaking purely personally, if Peco were to announce nothing more than their code 75 range with a British-specific sleeper base I would be satisfied.  

 

So the question I would ask is 'how hard could it be for the likes of Peco to fit a new sleeperbase to their existing range?'- considering how the streamline range already has three options for sleepers (timber, concrete and steel/ concrete) I would hazard a guess that it can't be all that hard to fit up a moulding machine to run out steam age British sleeper bases to be fitted to their standard rail.

 

Apologies if the above merely re-iterates what has already been said (or is baldly obvious!)  

[47137]

Here is a list of 15 decisions we need to make:

 

1 Rail 1: Bullhead or FB

2 Rail 2: nickel silver or steel

3 Rail 3: pre-weathered (like Tillig) or bright

 

4Base 1: rigid, or flexible (lijke Tillig) or break-out links to allow bending

5 Base 2: thick sleepers or thin sleepers

6 Crossing: electrofrog, live frog or (metal) dead frog

 

7 Standard: 00-BF or 00-Peco

8 Geometry: specified by radius or by crossing angle and blade length

9 Dimensions - drop-in replacement for Peco, or something else

 

ATimbers width: dimension

B Timbers pitch 1: varied (like the prototype) or even (like plain track and Peco points)

C Timbers pitch 2: dimension(s)

 

D Blades: solid or pressed/hinged

E Latching: over-centre spring (removable) or reliant on user mechanism

F Wiring: built-in wire dropper to crossing or rely on user connection (n/a for a dead frog)

 

I've ignored the radius - I reckon 3 feet will suit most of the people most of the time.

 

Some decisions are easier, some are harder. Should we set up a poll or thrash these out in postings?

 

- Richard.

[Pacific231G]

I still very definitely believe that there is a mass market for a revised code 75 system with, albeit compromised, improved proportions for the timbering. A system that would suit nearly all mainstream modellers and could therefore have acceptable unit prices.

 

Why am I against 16.2 gauge? Well I think it is getting just that bit too fine and too clever to ensure the necessary degree of retrospective compatibility. Something with thickish flanges will come a cropper, sooner or later. Also, consider a long wheelbase 8 or 10 coupled hand-built loco, ultra detailed, painstakingly set up to give it just enough sideplay on its various axles to get comfortably around a 3 foot radius, including passage through crossings and check-rails. Reduce the gauge and suddenly there's not quite enough clearance any more. I for one would not want to have to strip down an otherwise perfectly satisfactory chassis just to accommodate and un-necessary tweak to the gauge.

 

So my preference, and hence the title of this topic: 16.5mm gauge.

I don't think there is or ever has been a suggestion that 16.2mm should become the nominal gauge for commercial 00 so, if people are choosing to use it for the track they are building why would you be against that? It's entirely up to them and they'll know to be judicious about the nominally 16.5mm gauge wheelsets they use with it.

 

I think there would be a market for a range of ready to use 16.5mm gauge bullhead points with appropriately spaced timbering. Probably a much larger niche than the current kit offerings but still not a mass market but maybe a wider potential than we might assume.

[Dominion]

Here is a list of 15 decisions we need to make:

 

1 Rail 1: Bullhead or FB

2 Rail 2: nickel silver or steel

3 Rail 3: pre-weathered (like Tillig) or bright

 

4Base 1: rigid, or flexible (lijke Tillig) or break-out links to allow bending

5 Base 2: thick sleepers or thin sleepers

6 Crossing: electrofrog, live frog or (metal) dead frog

 

7 Standard: 00-BF or 00-Peco

8 Geometry: specified by radius or by crossing angle and blade length

9 Dimensions - drop-in replacement for Peco, or something else

 

ATimbers width: dimension

B Timbers pitch 1: varied (like the prototype) or even (like plain track and Peco points)

C Timbers pitch 2: dimension(s)

 

D Blades: solid or pressed/hinged

E Latching: over-centre spring (removable) or reliant on user mechanism

F Wiring: built-in wire dropper to crossing or rely on user connection (n/a for a dead frog)

 

I've ignored the radius - I reckon 3 feet will suit most of the people most of the time.

 

Some decisions are easier, some are harder. Should we set up a poll or thrash these out in postings?

 

- Richard.

Good idea. If pursued, could we differentiate between "Required characteristic for me to buy" and "prefer, but would likely buy without"  Tom

[hayfield]

I am interested in a more scale-like track; were it available I would be amongst the first in the queue to get hold of it. 

 

Speaking purely personally, of all the things wrong with RTR track the factors that I find most unacceptable are the sleepers and the lack of chairs.  (Oddly the flatbottom rail I can live with).  

A proper British-spec steam age RTR track range would be great!- but reading this thread (and others like it) makes it clear that a compromise will likely have to be drawn somewhere.  Again speaking purely personally, if Peco were to announce nothing more than their code 75 range with a British-specific sleeper base I would be satisfied.  

 

So the question I would ask is 'how hard could it be for the likes of Peco to fit a new sleeperbase to their existing range?'- considering how the streamline range already has three options for sleepers (timber, concrete and steel/ concrete) I would hazard a guess that it can't be all that hard to fit up a moulding machine to run out steam age British sleeper bases to be fitted to their standard rail.

 

Apologies if the above merely re-iterates what has already been said (or is baldly obvious!)  

 

James

 

Plain RTR track in 00 gauge (not 00/H0) has been available for years, now you have SMP and C+L bit the sleeper bases are thinner than Peco's RTR (so need a bit of packing) or the correct height for SMP basic plastic 36" radius point, Exactoscale fast track bases match Peco's height

 

Points (turnouts & crossings) are a different thing, with 2 types of 3 bolt chairs plus 2 and 4 bolt chairs, sizes etc. A basic generic system would be a good start, but do you aim at the currant rtr sizes or go for larger radius items

 

The next problem is how many do actually know that what's available in RTR is wrong anyway and do they care, are they willing to pay the cost for better track as they do with loco's, buildings etc. 

 

I think 3D printing will come to the rescue where you can order the specification to suite you era/geographical requirements. Until you stop buying it Peco / Tilling etc will keep making it

[martin_wynne]

Until you stop buying it Peco / Tilling etc will keep making it.

 

Hi John,

 

I think you have summed up 2 long topics very neatly in a dozen words.

 

Martin.

[gr.king]

What does "against" mean? A track gauge is a dimension, you can't be "for" or "against" it.

 

Against adopting it myself and against anything that might lead to a gauge change being forced upon us by manufacturers who have been misled into believing that the majority want it

 

I can be for or against anything I choose.

[gr.king]

 

None of that is true.  I also have a 2-8-8-8-2 loco, but here's a 4-12-2 for starters.  How big do you want to go.....:-)

 

 

Your loco is not hand built to a "will only just go round minimum radius in 16.5mm gauge" standard so it does not disprove my point. Commercial models are often built with a lot of freedom to deal with curves.

[gordon s]

Your loco is not hand built to a "will only just go round minimum radius in 16.5mm gauge" standard so it does not disprove my point. Commercial models are often built with a lot of freedom to deal with curves.

 

 

.....which is why I added a professionally built loco to the video's.  That was built for me as were numerous other loco's.  They all meet the criteria you used in your own post.  Either way your statement is totally untrue and does not help your cause.

[47137]

What does "against" mean? A track gauge is a dimension, you can't be "for" or "against" it.

 

All you can do is use it, or not use it. Your decision. Your choice. Nobody minds or much cares either way.

 

Martin.

 

I suggest, it is perfectly possible to be for or against a particular track gauge for a pointwork product.

 

Furthermore, the manufacturer or sponsor will care a great deal.

 

- Richard.

[gr.king]

 Anyway, ignoring the distraction of other gauges:

 

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.

DSCF3659.jpg

 

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.

 

Thanks Richard,

 

I meant to comment on this yesterday, but ran out of time. That's a superb practical illustration of exactly the kind of "compatible with two systems for the price of one" compromise timbering that I imagined would be possible.

Your remark about spacing out sleepers in Peco plain track is highly relevant too. If some users of the existing "tightly spaced sleepers" Peco were actually observant enough to spot the difference, and concerned enough to consider it a "problem", it would be easy for them to progressive shuffle the last few sleepers on existing Peco track to get an even more subtle transition from one system to another.

 

I don't know whether you counted the "bent timber" (or two angled sleepers) at the end of the Peco point when coming up with your numbers. I suspect not, as when I included it I got 30 in the Peco medium radius point, and were I to try to build something such as you have, or simply prepare some plans / illustrations, I'd be aiming for 27 timbers - probably agreeing with your 26 if we're ignoring that end bit. Similarly the large radius point would come down to 31 rather than 35.  Were these numbers to be adjusted to fully match SMP plain track and ignore the Peco users, a further reduction of 3 timbers per point would be required.

 

Now do I need to post diagrams to illustrate what I mean?

 

By the way, having carefully re-measured plain track, I now reckon that Peco has sleepers 29.5mm x 3.25mm at 7mm centres, and SMP has 31.6 x 3.5 at 8.8 centres. I therefore suggest that pointwork with timbers 3.5 mm wide at 8mm centres would be a reasonable compromise, with each of the ends of the timbers projecting about 0.5 to 1mm more than current Peco. For the SMP plain track user the tighter spacing of the timbers in the points would be somewhat like the prototype. The "old Peco" plain track user could space his final sleepers a little if he felt it necessary.

[gr.king]

The other thing that I would ask people to get away from is discussion of radius. It's not the right starting place. To follow prototype practice, we need to be talking about the crossing angle    (1 in 6, 1 in 8, etc). Once one gets away from the 8' x 4' "roundy", there really is not much need for tight radius pointwork (less than A5) at all.

 

I don't disagree with describing things in the prototypical way, but for the purposes of discussing a hypothetical upgrade to Peco, sticking to radius terminology, even if wrong, makes it easy for us all to relate the discussion to the current product.

 

Also, for those such as myself who have no umbilical connection to our computers and are not versed in the wonders of Templot, layout planning begins with pencil, rule, compasses and paper. It's far easier for me to envisage points as having a particular equivalent radius than it is to think about the angle, and from what location within the length of the point that angular divergence arises.

[gr.king]

.....which is why I added a professionally built loco to the video's.  That was built for me as were numerous other loco's.  They all meet the criteria you used in your own post.  Either way your statement is totally untrue and does not help your cause.

 

The fact that the K1 copes doesn't prove the point. There will be a limiting case in which a very long and rigid loco can just cope with 16.5mm gauge and wide check rail clearances on a curve that would be just that bit too tight if laid to 16.2 radius with narrow check rail clearances.

[gordon s]

 Anyway, ignoring the distraction of other gauges:

 

An apology or retraction would have been preferred.  You have made a statement that is totally without proof and pure speculation on your part.

[gordon s]

The fact that the K1 copes doesn't prove the point. There will be a limiting case in which a very long and rigid loco can just cope with 16.5mm gauge and wide check rail clearances on a curve that would be just that bit too tight if laid to 16.2 radius with narrow check rail clearances.

 

Sorry our posts crossed.  Let's reverse the process then and perhaps you would like to show us all an example that proves your statement?