16.5mm traditional OO gauge. Classic steam era pointwork.

[gr.king]

Well, pressing on with the possibilities for 16.5mm gauge track improvement rather than wasting time and space on arguments about 16.2 or the prophets of doom who can only manage to say that they don't believe that Peco can ever be induced to change, here are some doctored images of plain Peco track, plain SMP Scaleway, and a hypothetical version of Peco with sleeper size altered to about 30.6mm x 3.6mm spaced at 8mm centres. I know that these don't show quite how it would work out for pointwork. Such image mock-ups would take a long time for me to create. I hope the images do however reveal how Peco revised to an intermediate sleepering standard might both blend more acceptably with "scale" track systems as well as continuing to be visually compatible with the existing Peco product that many will already have in quantity on large layouts. IF Peco could be induced to consider at least altering the plastic bases of their standard medium and large points to the hypothetical intermediate standard, and if they did the job with enough skill, could this approach offer "scale" modellers more of a possibility of using such Peco points without deterring the existing customers from using the same revised points?

 

One image as you'll notice includes an illustration of my previous remark about shuffling the final sleepers of an existing piece of Peco to slightly revised positions in order to smooth the visual transition to the revised track. Another part of the same image shows the awkward clash between current Peco and SMP when used end-to-end.

 

By the way, going back over the above "skirmishes", Martin W and I do actually agree about a number of things and I wholeheartedly welcome his confirmation that 16.2 is meant only as a scale for specialised modelling, with application restricted to larger radius curves, not as a prevailing new commercial standard.

 

 

 

 

[martin_wynne]

By the way, going back over the above "skirmishes", Martin W and I do actually agree about a number of things and I wholeheartedly welcome his confirmation that 16.2 is meant only as a scale for specialised modelling, with application restricted to larger radius curves, not as a prevailing new commercial standard.

 

I didn't need to confirm it because:

 

a. I have said it repeatedly on here and other forums over many years, and

 

b. no-one has ever said otherwise.

 

It seems that you are the only one to doubt it, or need it confirming yet again. The internet being what it is in spreading misinformation as readily as fact, you haven't helped by appearing to suggest otherwise.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Joseph_Pestell]

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!)  

 

I totally agree with this.  If I am able to offer a manufactured alternative, I think it very likely that it would have to be existing Code 83 metalwork fitted to a new moulded base. That is not my ideal solution but probably the most affordable.

[Grovenor]

As it could have been and would have been had the OP gr.king not made repeated uninformed comments about other standards.

 

(And strange paranoid remarks about hidden agenda and manufacturer plans being corrupted and subverted by mysterious interests within the hobby. What on Earth was that all about? Perhaps those trying to corrupt Peco could report back on how they got on? )

 

Martin.

Martin, that is manifestly unfair, 00Sf was brought into this discussion by your post #28 followed by Joseph in post #33 and Gordon S with post #36, not by the OP.

And the conspiracy theory was brought in by 2750Papyrus back in post #4.

Regards

[Joseph_Pestell]

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.

 

To some considerable extent, we did, in the 57-page thread already mentioned. My conclusions from that were:

1) Bullhead (if possible)

2) Nickel Silver

3) Bright

4) Rigid / breakable links

5) Thick sleepers

6) DCC compatible

7) ???

8) By crossing angle (but for info: a #6 turnout has about 42" radius curve)

A) Compromise length to compensate for narrow gauge

B) Varied (if bullhead), Even (if FB).

C) Slightly reduced in proportion to the length

D) Solid

E) Non-latching

F) Built-in dropper(s)

 

Edit: b*****y emoticons!

[Joseph_Pestell]

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.

 

Even Peco themselves have moved on to crossing angle in their most recent HO production. It is the internationally accepted way of doing it.

 

I totally take your point that we are all used to thinking in radii (CJF's influence I think) and will try to post a table of the different types later today (info on the other laptop).

[Pacific231G]

Out of sheer interest (because I genuinely don't know, having never used it) is Hornby's sleeper spacing 'too close' (ignoring any other appearance issues)? If it is, then it begs the question 'why'?

A very interesting question to which the short answer is yes for OO though not for H0 .

 

I don't have any current Hornby track either but looking at photos of it in various adverts and dividing the given length by the number of sleepers (and allowing for the "half sleeper" at each end of the fixed tracks) I'm finding a spacing of 7.3mm. That's exactly the same spacing as Peco points and corresponds to  635mm in 1:87 scale (fairly close to the 600mm spacing of much modern European main line track and HS1) and 556mm in 1:76.2 (OO) scale which is closer AFAIK than any British prototype track.

Hornby France offers the same track under the Jouef brand with the same part numbers.

 

I've also found a piece of Horby Dublo two rail track, I don't know how old, and that has  a sleeper spacing of 8.15 mm  which corresponds to 620mm in OO, which is more credible,  and 710mm in H0. The sleeper dimensions though are the same as Peco and Hornby (which are very close to 1:87 scale for "standard" wooden sleepers but narrow for OO)

 

I don't know why Hornby reduced its spacing but I did hear that at one stage it was being produced by Roco in Austria whose design (though not sleeper dimensions, spacing and track length) does look similar.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I hope you don't mind me emphasizing your own remarks there, just in case anybody is getting ideas about moves towards a change of the proprietary gauge.

 

Now on that disputed issue of long wheelbase locos going around curves, it's perfectly simple. I am not making unfounded claims as Gordon S claims: In the extreme case, a multi-coupled loco on curved 16.5mm gauge track will have the flanges of its leading and trailing coupled wheels as hard up against the outside rail of a curve as they possible can be without binding or climbing over the rail, the middle wheels will have their flanges similarly tight against the inside rail. Move the rails closer together and the loco can no longer successfully negotiate a curve of that radius, it will either bind, or grind its way around, or climb over one or other of the rails. The slop inherent in existing OO gauge standards is useful given that most cannot open up their curves to fully prototypical radii. Demonstrations of locos considered to be relatively rigid by the owner, going around 16.2mm gauge curves do not prove that gauge narrowing is no problem, as a simple claim that the loco is relatively rigid does mean that it is genuinely an example of the extreme case.

 

I know that some people use 16.2mm throughout. I can understand your reticence about that in relation to curved track.

 

I can't see much reason to object to 16.2mm at the crossing angle of a turnout if it allows finer flangeways. A #6 has about a 42" radius at which size grinding wheel flanges should not be an issue..

[martin_wynne]

Martin, that is manifestly unfair

 

Hi Keith,

 

I'm not sure I follow you. See for example this from the OP:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/106133-165mm-traditional-oo-gauge-classic-steam-era-pointwork/&do=findComment&comment=2130325

 

From which:

 

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.

Which made me laugh when I read it.

 

I made a few posts to this topic without mentioning 00-SF or 16.2mm. As far as I can tell the first reference was in this exchange, not by me:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/106133-165mm-traditional-oo-gauge-classic-steam-era-pointwork/page-2&do=findComment&comment=2131471

 

However, if I have been misleading or unfair, I apologise.

 

Martin.

[Pacific231G]

Even Peco themselves have moved on to crossing angle in their most recent HO production. It is the internationally accepted way of doing it.

 

I totally take your point that we are all used to thinking in radii (CJF's influence I think) and will try to post a table of the different types later today (info on the other laptop).

Not CJF's influence; it was how almost every British modeller described their points going back to Beal and Denny. Even SMP points are quoted by radii

 

Peco's 83 line is made to NMRA standards and they follow N.American prototype practice by using frog numbers (surely not crossing angles in American English )such as   #6, #8.  (for a 1/6, 1/8 angle) That's not entirely universal by the way. The French (SNCF anyway) quote the tangent such as tg 0,05 corresponding to 1/20 or #20 or tg 0,11 corresponding to 1/9 or #9  

[Joseph_Pestell]

As promised above, dimensions for pointwork:

 

A5 turnout: Crossing angle = 11.421, radius 730mm, length 200mm

A6 turnout: 9.527, 1103mm, 225mm

B6 turnout: 9.527, 1053mm, 250mm

B8 turnout: 7.153, 2049mm, 300mm

 

As discussed on another thread, the dimensions and radii of Peco points is a bit of a minefield. The nominal 5' radius seems to be 4' nominal and only about 42" real radius. It's all to do with maintaining that constant 12 degrees so that points can be mixed and matched - although I am not sure when that might really be useful.

 

To me, the great advantage of the following the prototype system is the lesser angle of deviation - even on the 730mm (2'5") radius point. Makes for a much better appearance when the train is running through it.

 

Edit: Note that crossovers with correct track spacing would be less than double the length of the above figure.

[hayfield]

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.

 

 

I have kept away from the 00-sf remarks, as you have requested that comments should be aimed at the 16.5 gauge modeller. Having tried to add to the topic in a possessive manner adding my thoughts on how things might progress.

 

Given certain things that have been said against possibly me, certainly others I share a common interest with. THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY AT ALL, With Martin whatever scale or gauge you use you could not find a more helpful person, there are others who I may on the odd occasion differ in my view about something. But that is what its all about exploring other avenues and in doing this the many spin off's have greatly moved the hobby on.

 

I am in agreement will most here that 00 gauge modellers should expect a product in their chosen scale, and its about time some perhaps start the ball rolling and try using proper 00 gauge items.

 

Now some on here seem to take pleasure in having a go at others, having a very blinkered approach that anyone who does not totally agree with them is a threat. Please lets keep all threads civil, we all can learn so much from each other if we keep an open mind. I have had some great ideas from new entrants into the hobby, but still hold those with more experience than me with high regard, only a fool refuses to learn from these folk

 

At the end of the day most do take great pleasure from others modelling activities whatever scale gauge combination they choose, I for one would back anyone trying to move 00 gauge items forward and am willing to learn from others thoughts. Take others with you as the bigger the group the larger the noise is about change, the more likely you are to be heard, do I care if others want 1.25 mm flange ways of course not. Do I care that 00 gauge modellers obtain better quality track, yes I do.

[gr.king]

Shall we try and put the dispute(s) and the analysis of the disputes to bed and attempt to get on with discussion of 16.5 mm gauge pointwork "improvements towards classis British realism". I am happy to rely on Martin's assertion that 16.2 gauge discussions elsewhere are not meant to create impetus for a change in the commercial gauge, and on that current basis I'm happy to apologize for being so strongly anti-16.2 in some of my remarks. That should save any further debate about who shoud accept responsibility for the flare up. Please consider however, dear 16.2 protaganists, the impression that it gives when several threads on this site are saturated by material relating to 16.2 gauge, some in fairness are stated to be for ??-SF but others are supposed to be for the "whole" of OO yet havealso been stuffed with 16.2 material. It seemed to me that the only way to keep this thread on-topic was to make it clearly NOT for 16.2.
I appear to have misjudged. You're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't.....

Now, admitting a serious lack of "full" knowledge of 16.2 standards but noting that gauge wideneing is specified "for sharper radii", dare I still suggest that if there's no gauge widening for the larger radii then an extreme case must still exist in which a long rigid loco only just able to go around a (say) 4 foot radius curve in 16.5 gauge would be "pinched" if the gauge were only 16.2? The actual answer doesn't matter for this thread, it doesn't belong here anyway, but if anybody can be bothered to tell me if I'm right or if I'm wrong by PM then please fire away.

Thanks by the way to the contributor far above who suggested that Tillig might be a willing specialist manufacturer. Does anybody have links that would allow them to find out?

Thanks also to Joseph for those point dimensions. Just so we all know, are those stated radii just for the curved portion linking the crossing area to the toe, or are they a figure than can be treated as the radius of a piece of plain curved track into which the overall flow of the curved road through the point would fit seamlessly? The two have to be different figues if there are straight portions within the point. Ideally, a track planner would need to know both figures.

 

There still seems to be some false belief that Peco as it stands is "correct HO" and the scale alone is what makes it look wrong for British OO. That is certainly not true for the "classis steam era" from of British track. Even if you scale up Peco sleeper sizes and spacings by 8/7 to compensate for the scale difference, they are still too close together for typical British track of the pre 1960 era.

 

Any further comments on the acceptability or otherwise of the hypothetical standard for an "intermediate improved Peco" type of track would be most welcome.

 

And by the way, references to the mystery individual who is said to have put his spanner in the works to foul up plans at Peco for British-looking track were never meant to refer to Martin, nor for that matter to John (Hayfield). 

[Tiptonian]

As someone who is older and probably a lot less intele...inteller...inteli....clever than most on this forum, may I, hopefully without upsetting anyone, offer the following?

 

I like my points referred to by radius. The radius I want is obtained by drawing straight lines at 90 degrees through the ends of the rails of the curve path, and measuring from the centre of the gauge to where the lines meet. Thus when I build a layout, I can plan it on graph paper with a rule, compass and a couple of pencils. Oh, and a large eraser.

 

 

This, however, is the one I cannot get my head round. If you want "nearer-correct" British 00 track, you already have a full system available. Unless I have missed the obvious, why not simply use SMP track and ready-built Marcway points? The last leaflet I have states £25:50p for 36", 48", and 54" radius, £26:50p for 60" and 72" radius, to name but a few of a wide range, and an Introductory offer of 4x 36" or 48" for £90.

 

No chairs? You are railway modellers. If you want them, add cosmetic ones. I would not bother. If I can actually see them, they are way over-scale anyway!

 

Prices are too high? Do you honestly think they would be made up to everyones required standard, and any cheaper elsewhere?

 

Compatability? The leaflet clearly states "The 00 range are built to take Hornby, Bachmann, Lima as well as finescale wheel standards".

 

 

Now, I don't wish to offend gr.king in any way; I greatly admire his work in resin casting and have had informative and pleasurable conversations with him. However, I do find this thread somewhat redundant. Why campaign for items which are already available?  Support the British manufacturer who actually supplies the items you all seem to want.   

[hayfield]

Tiptonian

 

In one way I think you are very correct in stating that for the average person describing a point (turnout) by its radius (36") is far more use that by its description ( A5)

 

But on the other hand it depends on how detailed you want your points (turnouts), in reality they are described by the switch and crossing size, secondly they are not built to a constant radius. Still this is nit picking   If someone wants to call it a 36" radius and another an A5 so what

 

I guess having the correct size of sleepers and their spacing is the first step, next the correct profile rail and or chairs, I could go on but one step at a time is better than none

[Joseph_Pestell]

 

 

 

Thanks also to Joseph for those point dimensions. Just so we all know, are those stated radii just for the curved portion linking the crossing area to the toe, or are they a figure than can be treated as the radius of a piece of plain curved track into which the overall flow of the curved road through the point would fit seamlessly? The two have to be different figues if there are straight portions within the point. Ideally, a track planner would need to know both figures.

 

 

 

Those radii are, I believe, just for the curved part of the point. But the overall dimension includes about 1.5in of straight.

[Paul Cram]

As someone who is older and probably a lot less intele...inteller...inteli....clever than most on this forum, may I, hopefully without upsetting anyone, offer the following?

 

I like my points referred to by radius. The radius I want is obtained by drawing straight lines at 90 degrees through the ends of the rails of the curve path, and measuring from the centre of the gauge to where the lines meet. Thus when I build a layout, I can plan it on graph paper with a rule, compass and a couple of pencils. Oh, and a large eraser.

 

 

This, however, is the one I cannot get my head round. If you want "nearer-correct" British 00 track, you already have a full system available. Unless I have missed the obvious, why not simply use SMP track and ready-built Marcway points? The last leaflet I have states £25:50p for 36", 48", and 54" radius, £26:50p for 60" and 72" radius, to name but a few of a wide range, and an Introductory offer of 4x 36" or 48" for £90.

 

No chairs? You are railway modellers. If you want them, add cosmetic ones. I would not bother. If I can actually see them, they are way over-scale anyway!

 

Prices are too high? Do you honestly think they would be made up to everyones required standard, and any cheaper elsewhere?

 

Compatability? The leaflet clearly states "The 00 range are built to take Hornby, Bachmann, Lima as well as finescale wheel standards".

 

 

Now, I don't wish to offend gr.king in any way; I greatly admire his work in resin casting and have had informative and pleasurable conversations with him. However, I do find this thread somewhat redundant. Why campaign for items which are already available?  Support the British manufacturer who actually supplies the items you all seem to want.   

If you mean that the the chairs are overscale for HO then you are correct. They are accurate for 4mm the only dimension that is over size is the Jaw width to allow the rail to pass through as the web on bull head rail is over size. It has to be to maintain the integrity of the rail.

[Ravenser]

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...

 

 

I agree strongly. We are faced with the textbook effects of a dominant position - with the effective monopolist able to impose its preference on the market in disregard of the market's requirements. There has been no improvement or development in readymade pointwork for almost 30 years - and minimal improvement in half a century

 

Begging of the "please, pretty please, Mr Manufacturer" kind has been ignored for 25 years. Another approach must be tried , that by-passes one company's veto on the market.

 

That means a "disruptive" business model such as retailer-led commissioning (with the associated mail-order distribution network) or a radically disruptive technology like 3D printing.

 

It is probably impractical to get such a product distributed through the conventional retail distribution chain. Therefore it will have to be sold direct by the sponsor - a distribution model we are seeing increasingly in the hobby.

[Ravenser]

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.

 

British outline models are for a number of reasons much more restrictive in terms of curvature than US or Continental prototypes. The latter have much more width to play with and distortions that British modellers wouldn't tolerate are routinely applied to get them round curves. And as we're unfamiliar with the prototypes we accept them as "perfect" scale models in a way we wouldn't if the same distortions were applied to a British prototype

 

The practical limits on radius imposed by an 8-coupled loco - which is what we're really talking about here - have been very much glossed over by the advocates of some standards.

 

Put very simply, any standard that requires minimum radii of 5' or higher, or in which a simple crossover ends up 1 metre long, is unworkable for a large majority of modellers. A lot of people are in OO because it allows them to build a reasonable layout in the restricted space available - whereas alternative standards do not.

 

The article in MRJ a few years back by the builder of Blea Moor was very much to the point. He found himself facing the situation where his available space wouldn't quite take the original Aylesbury in S7 , no matter how he tried . But it would take a big main line layout in OO . So that's what he built. 

 

Remember that the minimum radius is an engineering limit not a visual one. It applies just as much in the fiddle yard throat, where visual impact is totally irrelevant and 2' radius or 2'6" radius may well be employed, as "front of house". Any standard that has to be abandoned when you reach the fiddle yard is seriously flawed

 

A workable figure to aim for , in any improved track system , is that 8 coupled kit built locos should go round a 3' radius curve - including 3' equivalent radius pointwork. Smaller locos with shorter coupled wheelbases  should be able to go round a 2' radius curve/point.

 

Anything requiring larger radii than these is unworkable for the vast majority of modellers

[Ravenser]

 

 

This, however, is the one I cannot get my head round. If you want "nearer-correct" British 00 track, you already have a full system available. Unless I have missed the obvious, why not simply use SMP track and ready-built Marcway points? The last leaflet I have states £25:50p for 36", 48", and 54" radius, £26:50p for 60" and 72" radius, to name but a few of a wide range, and an Introductory offer of 4x 36" or 48" for £90.

 

No chairs? You are railway modellers. If you want them, add cosmetic ones. I would not bother. If I can actually see them, they are way over-scale anyway!

 

Prices are too high? Do you honestly think they would be made up to everyones required standard, and any cheaper elsewhere?

 

Compatability? The leaflet clearly states "The 00 range are built to take Hornby, Bachmann, Lima as well as finescale wheel standards".

 

 

Now, I don't wish to offend gr.king in any way; I greatly admire his work in resin casting and have had informative and pleasurable conversations with him. However, I do find this thread somewhat redundant. Why campaign for items which are already available?  Support the British manufacturer who actually supplies the items you all seem to want.   

 

I'm happy to support and highlight Marcway.

 

But - the product is low profile, barely advertised and only available from one specialist source. The nature of the product (handbuilt to order pointwork) means that it can't be produced in large quantities. 

 

My firm belief is that Marcway don't actively promote their product simply because they have all the business they can handle already. Demand, I suspect, is very much sufficient to absorb all the pointwork they can make already

 

They cannot possibly supply enough pointwork to serve the hobby as a whole.

 

Handbuilt pointwork can only ever be an option for about 10% of the hobby. That leaves 90% of the hobby out in the cold.

 

It is that 90% that this thread is about.

[martin_wynne]

Any standard that has to be abandoned when you reach the fiddle yard is seriously flawed

 

Hi Ravenser,

 

Indeed. Which applies to the DOGA-Fine standard.

 

But it does NOT apply to 4-SF (00-SF) because that doesn't require any change to wheel back-to-backs. So on a 4-SF (00-SF) layout you can if you wish use Peco track for the fiddle yard as sharp as you like -- and where the timbering style doesn't matter in the slightest.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[sub39h]

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.

 

I think most people model railways because they want to see trains. Most rail enthusiasts go to train spot, not track spot. This is therefore reflected in the model railway scene as well. 

 

I don't have the skill to make some of the excellent models on here, but if I was going to learn anything first, it would be how to detail, paint and weather my locos and rolling stock. The RTR track isn't perfect, but it'll do because you can't really see it when a train is on it! 

 

If there was a commercially available track with a better compromise than what we have now at a similar price as Peco I would definitely buy it. If it is more expensive I will stick with Peco - I'd rather spend my money on rolling stock. 

[Russ (mines a pint)]

Handbuilt pointwork can only ever be an option for about 10% of the hobby. That leaves 90% of the hobby out in the cold.

 

 

That said most people do solder things even if only wires to rails or point motors - fixing rails to sleepers is not difficult either by the plastic/glue methods or solder to copperclad, getting the spaces/filing right and it all fitting together so it works is the proposition. 

 

Have been following the FiNetrax N gauge stuff for a while?....  would a OO version be any good.  _ for those unfamiliar it is a totally plastic/solvent based system- unlike the current OO point kits all the parts have a positive drilled fit and pre-assambled crossing blades & looks good:  see: http://www.britishfinescale.com/product-p/finetrax-turnout-b6.htm

[Ravenser]

Hi Ravenser,

 

Indeed. Which applies to the DOGA-Fine standard.

 

But it does NOT apply to 4-SF (00-SF) because that doesn't require any change to wheel back-to-backs. So on a 4-SF (00-SF) layout you can if you wish use Peco track for the fiddle yard as sharp as you like -- and where the timbering style doesn't matter in the slightest.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Martin - this is way off topic. And it's factually wrong. You can perfectly well build fiddle yard pointwork to that standard.

 

But this is not a topic for pushing the claimed merits of your pet standard, nor had I made any mention of the DOGA Finescale standard in my post. That is your personal pet subject being given another outing , irrelevant to the subject in hand.

 

To invert one of your favourite memes "This topic is about ready made or non-handbuilt track. It is not about handbuilt track. People should not post about handbuilt track in this thread"

 

For the record, I am not advocating that ready- made commercial OO pointwork should be made to the DOGA OO-Finescale standard

 

However, as we are both aware, Peco pointwork does not fully support RTR wheels (ie RP25/110 or very close equivalent) through the crossing. Even more seriously, the check rails are not operative on Streamline with modern RTR wheels.  I do not see why this suddenly doesn't matter in the fiddle yard throat but is terribly important "front of house". I repeat - this is an engineering issue , not a cosmetic one. 

 

To be absolutely clear - I believe that the flangeway on gr.king';s proposed "improved OO point" should be fractionally less than 1.27mm , since that is the value at which modern RTR wheels are fully supported throughout. But no tighter than that, in order to maximise the RTR wheelsets it will take. And I would like such ready-made pointwork to be available for laying in the fiddle-yard throat as well

 

Such a value would accommodate all RTR made in the last 15 years , and everything from the previous decade or so bar pre 2000 Hornby production (most of which has pretty ropey mechanisms anyway). I think that's sufficient backward compatibility

[martin_wynne]

Martin - this is way off topic.

 

Yes, it is off the OP's topic.

 

But it is not off-topic in response to your post, because you were referring to possible different standards.

 

Whereas this topic isn't about standards at all -- the standard is already a given. The OP said in his first post: "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."

 

 

Martin.