Jump to content
 

C&L Finescale


Andy Y
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi Ravenser,

 

I was referring to Check Gauges, not track gauges. The 00-SF check gauges are for 15.2mm check rails, not running rails, and are suitable for all modern 00 except DOGA-Fine, on both 16.2mm and 16.5mm track gauge.

 

I was replying to John's complaint that traditionally check gauges have been available for EM and P4, but not for 00. The fact that you misunderstand the difference between check gauge and track gauge illustrates his point perfectly.

 

 

 

00-SF is not mine, it's been around since the 1970s. And I'm not actively promoting anything. I do my best to provide helpful information for track-builders -- why is it that every time I do so you pop up to denounce it, often as now completely misunderstanding what I've said?

 

Martin.

 

There are some mathematical problems with this.

 

The check gauge for OO - Intermediate is 15.3mm (tolerance +/- 0.05mm)- not 15.2mm

 

See the standard here http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/commercialtrack.htm

 

The check gauge for OO BRMSB is 15.25mm nominal - not 15.2mm

 

And, as I said earlier

 

 

 

C+L state the gauges in question produce 1.0mm flangeways - this is incorrect for both OO BRMSB (nominal 1.25mm flangeway, ) and DOGA OO Intermediate (tolerance range 1.15mm - 1.25mm flangeway)

 

 

And I haven't actually denounced anything - I've simply said that the gauges in question are not for 16.5mm/OO, and it's misleading to suggest they are

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

There are some mathematical problems with this.

 

The check gauge for OO - Intermediate is 15.3mm (tolerance +/- 0.05mm)- not 15.2mm

 

See the standard here http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/commercialtrack.htm

 

The check gauge for OO BRMSB is 15.25mm nominal - not 15.2mm

 

Hi Ravenser,

 

I just knew that you would pick that up. The fact is that both those standards are flawed in that respect, and will cause correctly set wheels to lurch sideways slightly as they run through crossings, especially on the inner road of curved turnouts.

 

For best running the check gauge minimum should match the wheel back-to-flange maximum. If you refer to the DOGA-Intermediate wheel standard:

 

 http://doubleogauge.com/standards/commercialwheels.htm

 

you will see that the wheel back-to-flange maximum is set at 15.2mm. Which means the 00-SF 15.2mm check gauges will provide the best running performance with those wheels.

 

The check gauge for 00-BF is 15.2mm, as I said, and the 00-SF gauges are fully compatible:

 

2_241528_040000000.png

 

( 16.5 - 1.3 = 15.2 )

 

Disregarding maths, it stands to reason that if all these 00 standards are intended to run the same wheels, they should all have the same check gauge setting.

 

But I'm tired of arguing this stuff over and over again. All anyone has to do is try using the 15.2mm check gauges and see for themselves.

 

Martin.

Edited by martin_wynne
Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS can we keep this thread to C&L, instead of the same old protagonists trying to re-start their own personal version of gauge wars (or in this case check gauge wars) again.

 

Please

Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS can we keep this thread to C&L, instead of the same old protagonists trying to re-start their own personal version of gauge wars (or in this case check gauge wars) again.

 

Please

 

Porcy Mane

 

Whilst I totally agree with you this deviation does have some relevance for those who buy C&L turnouts/common crossings/chairs/gauges/gauge narrowing

 

Rightly or wrongly C&L some years ago decided to market the EM gauge common crossings for 00 gauge use rather than invest in a third group common crossings with a flangeway gap of 1.25 mm. To enable these common crossings to be used one of the owners previous to Peter LLewellyn decided go get a large batch of roller gauges made to the DOGA Fine standards. Technically this is fine but involver the modeller increasing the back to back dimensions of all stock to work properly. Somehow along the line this part of the information got lost and these gauges were sold as standard 00 gauges

 

The problem was we had gauges designed for this system (to allow the rail to rotate within the slot), setting the stock rails to the correct gauge. But if used to set the check rails would cause running issues with wheels set to the correct 00 back to back settings used by the RTR trade. However visually the 1 mm flangeway gaps looked so much better and allowed the EM gauge common crossings to be used.

 

You could use a roller gauge from another source set to standard 00 gauge settings, firstly it would not fit on to the common crossing without modification, secondly if altered it may hold the rail at the wrong angle, introducing gauge narrowing, thirdly would set the check rail in the wrong place.

 

Now anyone wanting to start building track to 00 standards would not only be totally confused, but put off building their own track because of the minefield in front of them

 

The solution is quite straight forward and simple to achieve. Why do modellers want to build their own track ? usually they want something that looks better and or need a bespoke design

 

For simplicity and ease of build most prefer to use pre-made common crossings or start off first with a kit of parts to learn this method of building, 00SF allows the 00 gauge modeller to use the pre-made common crossings set with 1mm flangeway gaps, the added bonus is that the design of the 00SF gauges work with the chairs, RTR stock can be used straight out of the box and the finished article looks so much better that a standard 00 gauge turnout with wider gaps.

 

Nothing wrong with selling an 00 gauge kit to a prospective first time buyer, showing a made up turnout built to 00SF standards knowing they could easily make it up and have a good looking and reliably working piece of track work. Using the right parts correctly with the correct tools is what we are talking about avoiding the issue of using the wrong gauge and have gauge narrowing issues

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The 00SF check rail gauge is designed to fit into the 1mm gap between the Vee and wing rail (described by C&L as flangeway) it will also fit the 1.25 mm gap required by the GOGA intermediate specifications for the wing rail gap, I believe the DOGA intermediate check rail measurement is 15.2 mm which the gauge complies with, as the 00SF specifications uses the same measurement. As Martin has said we are talking about a check rail not running rail gauge

 

The DOGA OO Intermediate check gauge is 15.3mm … As stated on the data sheets

 

 

 

Martin Wynne

 

For best running the check gauge minimum should match the wheel back-to-flange maximum. If you refer to the DOGA-Intermediate wheel standard:

 

 http://doubleogauge....rcialwheels.htm

 

you will see that the wheel back-to-flange maximum is set at 15.2mm. Which means the 00-SF 15.2mm check gauges will provide the best running performance with those wheels.....   

 if all these 00 standards are intended to run the same wheels, they should all have the same check gauge setting.

 

 

Err - no. The check gauge must be greater than the front-to-back , otherwise there is no clearance between the wheel set and the check rail (and crossing on the other side) and the whole thing binds . The check rail is supposed to "check" the wheelset before it touches the crossing - it holds the wheelset away from the gap at the crossing

 

Therefore the check gauge must be >15.2mm  0.1mm clearance is surely an absolute minimum in this situation

 

 

 

 

But these standards are not designed to run the same wheels … Your OO-SF standard is built around Gibson, Ultrascale, RP25/88 (and Romford) wheels - OO-Intermediate is built around RP25/110 wheels.

 

RP25/88 and RP25/110 are different wheel profiles.

 

Furthermore Gibson wheels are supplied with 14.7mm back to back not 14.4mm (we are not simply talking about loco wheels here)

 

I understand Porcy Mane's feelings very well . But as someone who actually works in OO, to OO-Intermediate standard, I'm frustrated to see misrepresentation and misstatements by people who do not work in OO, made apparently to "guide" OO modellers into buying products which are not for 16.5mm OO but to  a different standard , of the posters' own devising, and which - in at least one case - the proponent does not work in himself....

 

Inaccurate and misleading information has been posted, and it's not unreasonable for people actually working in the relevant standard to correct it

 

Why is it that the main qualification for pronouncing on standards in OO seems to be that you wouldn't dream of modelling in OO yourself, and that the comments of those who actually work in OO are regarded as carrying much less weight on the subject than the comments of those who don't? (It is something that happens in every single discussion about OO standards I've ever read....)

Edited by Ravenser
Link to post
Share on other sites

Porcy Mane

 

Whilst I totally agree with you this deviation does have some relevance for those who buy C&L turnouts/common crossings/chairs/gauges/gauge narrowing

 

Rightly or wrongly C&L some years ago decided to market the EM gauge common crossings for 00 gauge use rather than invest in a third group common crossings with a flangeway gap of 1.25 mm. To enable these common crossings to be used one of the owners previous to Peter LLewellyn decided go get a large batch of roller gauges made to the DOGA Fine standards. Technically this is fine but involver the modeller increasing the back to back dimensions of all stock to work properly. Somehow along the line this part of the information got lost and these gauges were sold as standard 00 gauges

 

The problem was we had gauges designed for this system (to allow the rail to rotate within the slot), setting the stock rails to the correct gauge. But if used to set the check rails would cause running issues with wheels set to the correct 00 back to back settings used by the RTR trade. However visually the 1 mm flangeway gaps looked so much better and allowed the EM gauge common crossings to be used.

 

 

For the record, C+L began selling those common crossings for OO back in the 1980s, at least a decade before the DOGA OO-Finescale standard was published, and they were selling those roller gauges from the late 1980s as well.

 

In those days it was the general assumption that anyone using RTR OO models on a layout with handbuilt track would have to re-wheel them. It was a sine qua non - moving to scale track meant comprehensive rewheeling . Forcing out wheels to a wider gauge was a desperate bodge. The mere idea of "the correct OO back to back settings used by the RTR trade" would have been regarded as absurd nonsense in those days - it was taken for granted that nothing about RTR wheel and track specifications was correct in any way 

 

Implicit in the whole C+L package for OO was that you would re-wheel with Gibsons - the latest finest OO wheels - throughout. In those days C+L sold OO back to back gauges at 14.8mm , later at 14.7mm - they were just labelled as "OO" without explanation and they never mentioned the adjustment in B2B..  (I have one in my box - Ultrascales, for the use of...)

 

It was not about adjusting existing RTR wheels but about rewheeling - and probably building a whole new chassis as well- who wanted to tolerate a 1980s ringfield tender drive? So no information was lost along the way - C+L  never provided the relevant info from the start....

 

The DOGA OO Finescale standard was simply a codification  in 2001, of this whole C+L /Gibsons "package" - making explicit what had been left implicit , and frankly hidden behind a series of smokescreens and fog banks, and providing figures and guidance for the modeller.  This package was always conceived as being for modellers who had "moved on" from Romfords as obsolete and too coarse

 

Whether this "package" - we might call it "EM minus 1.7mm" -  is the best approach to OO on offer in the very different situation thirty years later is another matter.

My own feels are probably obvious , as I work in OO Intermediate. But in the late 20th century there was a strong feeling that "EM minus 1.7mm" was where "scale OO" needed to go.

 

I agree with you that offering a 1.25mm flangeway made-up crossing for OO would in retrospect have been the right way for C+L to go. But C+L was run by modellers who worked in finescale gauges, not OO (Len Newman - P4, John Pottinger - P4, Brian Lewis - 7mm finescale) - and who wanted sales to OO modellers to make their products for finescale gauges commercially viable.

 

A fine example of the consequences of having OO standards set by people who work in finescale gauges and don't ultimately care about OO that much.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Porcy Mane

 

Whilst I totally agree with you this deviation does have some relevance for those who buy C&L turnouts/common crossings/chairs/gauges/gauge narrowing

 

I fully accept what you are saying and agree totally about the relevance but what I and I expect a lot of others was hoping not to see, was the thead descent into the usual to-ing and fro-ing  of individuals contesting merits of different dimensions and components and the history of them as evidenced on numerous other threads (Locked) on this forum. In this specific thread, I would think people don't want to read about the what's, why's, when's & wherefores of a specific dimension for a specific track standard hence the reason for my response (and the way in which it was made).

 

I suspect the majority of people viewing this thread do so to keep informed on the progress of C & L being brought back to full speed operation with it probably being the most important retailer of track components for those interested in building their own trackwork in the UK, something for which you seem to be doing an admirable job.

 

Edited by Porcy Mane
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Err - no. The check gauge must be greater than the front-to-back

 

Err - no. For the best running the check gauge and back-to-flange dimensions should be equal. Then when the flange on one side is running against the vee nose, the back of the opposite wheel just kisses the check rail. That situation exists on the diverging road of most turnouts. If you make the check gauge any wider than that, the check rail deflects the wheelset sideways with a lurch as it runs through the crossing.

 

 

Your OO-SF standard

 

For the umpteenth time of telling you, 00-SF is NOT MINE. It was developed as "EM minus 2" in the early 1970s by Roy Miller of the EMGS, and used by several modellers. If DOGA had had any sense they would have adopted it as their DOGA-Fine standard instead of the disastrous "EM minus 1.7" standard which has caused so many folks so much grief. And these endless arguments would never have arisen.

 

The evidence was in front of their eyes: 00 back-to-back 14.5mm, EM back-to-back 16.5mm, (BRMSB). The difference is 2mm, not 1.7mm.

 

 

it is built around Gibson, Ultrascale, RP25/88 (and Romford) wheels - OO-Intermediate is built around RP25/110 wheels.

 

For the umpteenth time of saying so, yes -- IF, IF, IF you use only RTR wheels (RP25/110), DOGA-Intermediate and 00-BF are just fine, and you don't need 00-SF. But not everyone wants to be restricted to using only RTR wheels.

 

With apologies to those who think they should be able to tell others what they can say in a topic reply. That is what the Blogs section on RMweb is for. On a Forum section, all are invited to respond in any way they wish. There is no requirement for anyone to read it.

 

Martin.

Edited by martin_wynne
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I though the whole idea of being in a society is to both promote and develop said hobby, gladly most modellers I come across are very much open minded and unlike yourself I have been involved in advising modellers in the use of both C&L and Exactoscale parts

 

The most common remark by those who are looking to build their own 4mm scale turnouts and crossings is that they require better looking trackwork, for some that means looking to migrate to either P4 or EM gauges. The vast majority wishing to stay with 00 gauge as they do not want to re-gauge/re-wheel their stock

 

They all see the value in looks of finer flangeways when looking at a turnout where the common crossing is set to 00SF standards, but entry and exits set to 00 to match existing RTR flexi track, along with the benefit/convenience of buying pre-made common crossings. However the proof of the pudding is in the eating, this is where for RTR stock happily works out of the box far better on track built to 00sf (through the crossings) than 00 universal standards

 

 

As Martin has said 00SF works and is compatible with 00 (universal) standards

Edited by hayfield
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold

Further announcement today from Andrew Jukes about Exactoscale:

 

https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=62911#p62911

 

(scroll to bottom of page)

 

and at: https://exactoscale.com/

 

(very slow to load)

 

It seems that the 7mm/ft scale items will be available via the Scale7 group: https://www.scaleseven.org.uk/index.php?id=262

A small stand is planned to be at Scaleforum this year where some limited supplies of P4 track items will be available (cash sales only). Scaleforum details: https://www.scalefour.org/scaleforum/2018/

Edited by martin_wynne
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I though the whole idea of being in a society is to both promote and develop said hobby, gladly most modellers I come across are very much open minded and unlike yourself I have been involved in advising modellers in the use of both C&L and Exactoscale parts

 

The most common remark by those who are looking to build their own 4mm scale turnouts and crossings is that they require better looking trackwork, for some that means looking to migrate to either P4 or EM gauges. The vast majority wishing to stay with 00 gauge as they do not want to re-gauge/re-wheel their stock

 

They all see the value in looks of finer flangeways when looking at a turnout where the common crossing is set to 00SF standards, but entry and exits set to 00 to match existing RTR flexi track, along with the benefit/convenience of buying pre-made common crossings. However the proof of the pudding is in the eating, this is where for RTR stock happily works out of the box far better on track built to 00sf (through the crossings) than 00 universal standards

 

 

As Martin has said 00SF works and is compatible with 00 (universal) standards

 

I would love to try my hand at P4 but don't have the time or the skills. I have started building points for three... no four reasons (No one expects the Spanish… I'll come In again).

 

I started building points for four reasons:

  1. I hate the jointed blads in most rtr points ( which I Why I have previously used Tillig)
  2. I wanted to space sleepers correctly for OO ( which is why I stopped using Tillig)
  3. I want points that fit into the flow of the trackwork, my current project has a sweeping mainline curve of a diameter of about 40' it almost looks straight, But the points fit into it.
  4. My friend said I must build them.

It has not been pain free, bit I hope the results will be worth it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to try my hand at P4 but don't have the time or the skills. I have started building points for three... no four reasons (No one expects the Spanish… I'll come In again).

 

I started building points for four reasons:

  1. I hate the jointed blads in most rtr points ( which I Why I have previously used Tillig)
  2. I wanted to space sleepers correctly for OO ( which is why I stopped using Tillig)
  3. I want points that fit into the flow of the trackwork, my current project has a sweeping mainline curve of a diameter of about 40' it almost looks straight, But the points fit into it.
  4. My friend said I must build them.

It has not been pain free, bit I hope the results will be worth it.

 

 

Vistisen

 

You are probably in the majority of track builders by using 00 gauge and the reasons you have stated I have heard many times over. The other main reason is the cost and of difficulty in converting existing items to a wider gauge

 

The bulk of my stock is 00 gauge, but I have decided to slowly convert the ones I wish to keep to EM gauge, As it happens though I need a very small portable layout (for track building demonstrations) and have decided to build it to P4 standards, having acquired a few small P4 tank locos. Quite a few modellers have small inglenook/plank layouts, where they can try different ideas/techniques out or just have something completely different 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Vistisen,

 

If you can build pointwork in 00 you can build it in any gauge, it’s just a matter of using different track gauges.

 

Cheers,

 

David

 

That's true. I might be able to build the points, but I would also have to build all the rolling stock.If you take a look at my blog you'll see just how slow I am at modelling, That plus the fact that I am trying to build what is probably a club sized layout alone means that I have probably bitten off more than I can chew! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vistisen,

 

If you can build pointwork in 00 you can build it in any gauge, it’s just a matter of using different track gauges.

 

Cheers,

 

David

 

 

David

 

I actually think building 00 gauge turnouts and crossings is harder than building either P4 or EM gauge ones, simply down to the tolerances required from the standards in use

Edited by hayfield
Link to post
Share on other sites

David

 

I actually think building 00 gauge turnouts and crossings is harder than building either P4 or EM gauge ones, simply down to the tolerances required from the standards in use

I suppose it depends on the particular incarnation of 00 you are trying to build. My experience is in HO to NMRA standards and P4 using gauges from the S4soc. My point is if you have the right set of gauges from the organization of your choice the experience should be the same. I have no information about the “finescale” 00 but I don’t think that is in play here.

 

Cheers,

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I actually think building 00 gauge turnouts and crossings is harder than building either P4 or EM gauge ones, simply down to the tolerances required from the standards in use

 

Totally agree there John. For our DRAG test track, I recently built two turnouts in copperclad to replace the curved Peco ones that had worn out on the '00' circuit. For me, they were much harder to build than in P4. As l only had a roller gauge, l suppose that didn't help. Building in P4 (and in EM l suppose) with all the helpful gauges is a lot easier!

post-6728-0-39431800-1536046015.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it depends on the particular incarnation of 00 you are trying to build. My experience is in HO to NMRA standards and P4 using gauges from the S4soc. My point is if you have the right set of gauges from the organization of your choice the experience should be the same. I have no information about the “finescale” 00 but I don’t think that is in play here.

 

Cheers,

 

David

 

David

 

if you have the right set of gauges

 

This and such a variety of wheel settings on the UK market is the problem. If we had one set of standards it would be easier but the trouble is having a set of standards designed to be a universal standard which encompasses both today's finer offerings along with coarser standard wheels from time pass

 

Then unlike P4, EM and 00sf gauges there is a distinct lack of gauges available. Example wing rail gauges, easily available check rail gauges, block gauge and 3 point gauge. This latter gauge not for gauge widening but simply ease of holding rails upright. My pet hate is roller gauges with built in wing and check rail gauges

 

I do rue the decision when in the 3rd year at school not doing metal work (chose woodwork) and learning how to both turn items on a lathe and use a milling machine, but then my woodworking skills have come in handy in working on the houses I have owned.

 

I have also talked with currant and previous owners of C&L about the availability of gauges, understanding and economics is the down fall 

Edited by hayfield
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair points all. May I suggest that for standard 00 that the NMRA standards might well be the answer? Of course then you’d have to get Bachman and Hornby to agree but at least it’s a starting point. My HO track was done with a three point gauge and the NMRA gauge and worked fine with equipment fitted with RP25 wheels at the NMRA standard back to back.

 

Cheers,

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

May I suggest that for standard 00 that the NMRA standards might well be the answer? Of course then you’d have to get Bachman and Hornby to agree but at least it’s a starting point

 

Hi David,

 

The existing DOGA-Intermediate, 00-BF, and NMRA H0 standards are all essentially the same, and work fine with existing Bachmann and Hornby RTR models. There is no reason to change anything. You are simply adding to the confusion.

 

The problems arise because:

 

1. some 00 modellers like to use kit wheels in addition to RTR wheels. Kit wheels generally fall within or near to the RP25/88 standard, and are too narrow to work well on the above standards.

 

2. DOGA introduced a Fine 00 standard which required wheel back-to-backs to be modified, and worse than that C&L supplied gauges to this standard in their 00 track kits without telling users that they wouldn't work with RTR wheels as supplied.

 

None of these issues need affect anyone if they 1. stick to using RTR wheels, and 2. build track using the DOGA-Intermediate gauges (available from DOGA) or 00-BF gauges (available from Markits), and 3. don't go anywhere near DOGA-Fine.

 

That way they won't be frightened off from trying handbuilt 00 track, and it will work. The options available if wanting also to use kit wheels can be explored later.

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Hi Martyn,

 

I am looking at starting building some C&L points. From your reply below based on a mix of kit built engines and modern RTR can i take it the Markits gauges will be fine or should I be using something different for oo 16.5mm?

 

None of these issues need affect anyone if they 1. stick to using RTR wheels, and 2. build track using the DOGA-Intermediate gauges (available from DOGA) or 00-BF gauges (available from Markits), and 3. don't go anywhere near DOGA-Fine.

 

That way they won't be frightened off from trying handbuilt 00 track, and it will work. The options available if wanting also to use kit wheels can be explored later.

 

Martin.

 

By the way are C&L producing yet as prices on Ebay are mad. 

 

Thanks in advance

 

Duncan

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I am looking at starting building some C&L points. From your reply below based on a mix of kit built engines and modern RTR can i take it the Markits gauges will be fine or should I be using something different for oo 16.5mm?

 

Hi Duncan,

 

If you want to mix kit wheels and RTR wheels on the same track I strongly recommend that you go for 00-SF on 16.2mm rather than 16.5mm.

 

I don't want to repeat all the explanations yet again, it just causes endless arguments. However almost without exception, those who have actually tried 00-SF report excellent results. Many 00-SF users combine 16.2mm for the pointwork with 16.5mm flexi-track. Gauges for 00-SF are available from C&L, but you need to specifically order them and not their standard 00 gauges.

 

If you use the Markits gauges on 16.5mm, the RTR models will be fine. But those with kit wheels are likely to be bumpy running through the crossings (frogs).

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Martyn,

 

I am looking at starting building some C&L points. From your reply below based on a mix of kit built engines and modern RTR can i take it the Markits gauges will be fine or should I be using something different for oo 16.5mm?

 

By the way are C&L producing yet as prices on Ebay are mad. 

 

Thanks in advance

 

Duncan

 

 

Duncan

 

In reverse order, C&L are fine a simple order followed by a telephone call will set the ball in motion and your parts will normally follow in a few days. Do check items are in stock as this may hold up deliveries, I put an order into Alan Gibson a week ago, one item needs milling and I forgot to ask for in stock items to be sent and a second set of postage taken to cover the set of frames. Small traders cannot be expected to subsidise postage !!

 

As for the gauges you need ones where the head of the rail rotates in the slot, though gauge narrowing may not adversely affect running with 00 gauge

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Just a quick observation from me, but as I'm prepared to build my own track then I'm also comfortable with the idea of regauging my stock to suit. If I really wanted to just run RTR as is, then I certainly wouldn't be thinking about building my own track but would just work with whatever Peco or other RTR track manufacturers produce.

Edited by Ian J.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick observation from me, but as I'm prepared to build my own track then I'm also comfortable with the idea of regauging my stock to suit. If I really wanted to just run RTR as is, then I certainly wouldn't be thinking about building my own track but would just work with whatever Peco or other RTR track manufacturers produce.

I suspect there are many who would like both the option to run RTR suitably weathered and personalised and at the same time would like their trackwork to have the visual benefits of hand built track .... ie proper sleeper size and spacing, flowing curves and non standard turnouts. To my eyes there is a major visual difference between Peco and 00FS. By contrast I have seen some beautifully weathered and detailed RTR locos and stock.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...