Jump to content

ohlavache

Minitrains OO9 track

Recommended Posts

Hello.

I'm just at the very early stage of my project in OO9.

I bought and tested some Minitrains track to have an overview of what the size of my layout would be.

I noted that the track coupons do not join each other very well (contrary to Peco ones), which leads to difficulties in running trains.

Have you seen the same issue ?

Should I replace the joiners to solve the problem ? Maybe with Peco SL-310 ?

Thanks by advance for your help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changing the joiners might help, not tried the Minitrains track. In the longer term it might be worth using Peco track.

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎17‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 15:12, peterl said:

Changing the joiners might help, not tried the Minitrains track. In the longer term it might be worth using Peco track.

Peter

Probably not what you wish to hear but I'm in agreement with Peter even though, like him, I don't have personal experience of Minitrains track. There's a YouTube video below which doesn't look too promising for the smooth running of your future layout! If you're ok with laying flexible track or go for their range of setrack then Peco seems like a good alternative at this early stage. Hopefully, someone with Minitrains track experience will comment? HC

 

Edited by happyChappy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at that video, it looks more like the wheel BTB doesnt match the points,  

If your check rails and BTB are properly proportioned, you should never be jumping the frog.  

If its the check rails at fault, a sliver of plasticcard or paper glued to them to beef them up may help.  

 

A bonus for minitrains points is their small radius at only 5".

Shinohara HO2-1/2 points were 6" radius at the smallest, but finding them now that Shinohara have closed down will be tricky.  Ive got a few stashed for a future micro layout.  

Peco points are at a minimum 9" radius (also dont look very narrow gauge-y)

 

Edited by Spitfire2865

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/03/2019 at 15:54, Spitfire2865 said:

 dont look very narrow gauge-y

 

As all NG lines have different sleeper sizes, rail sizes and sleeper spacing I'm not sure what you mean by that, it could be equally argued that the Minitrains don't look very much like most British or European NG either! Code 80/83 rail used by both isn't very realistic for anything but the most recently Continental heavily used 750/760mm lines either. As such Peco Mainline and Tillig are only really suitable for them, as ever the Peco Crazytrack and Minitrains are compromises, if you want better looking NG track for British prototypes handbuild using code 60/55, or even better code 40 rail...

 

(Or just cover it in ballast and then no-one will know!! ;) )

Edited by Hobby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎09‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 22:09, ohlavache said:

 

Should I replace the joiners to solve the problem ? Maybe with Peco SL-310 ?

 

Back to your original question - at around £2 a pack for Peco SL-310 rail joiners it's worth giving it a try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spitfire

 

As someone who has a similar stash, can I ask whether you've checked modern Minitrains performance through Shinohara points? I haven't got around to introducing my small Minitrains stash to my small Shinohara stash!

 

I used Shinohara on a layout that I built in the 1980s, and liked the track and points a lot, ideal for 'industrial' narrow gauge, but found that the points weren't compatible with anything like all of the then available r-t-r N/HOe wheel-sets. IIRC I replaced all of the Roco 'tiny wagon' wheels with US N gauge plastic ones (I can't recall the make, but they were very good), but the older Eggerbahn wheels were fine, because they had a thinner flange. For locos, I used either Eggerbahn or scratch-built onto US N mechanisms; British and European N loco wheels again had 'too thick' flanges.

 

Mind you, the way my eyesight has gone downhill over the past forty years, even with glasses, both stashes might get sold on to some hawk-eyed youth!

 

Kevin

 

PS: my 1980s layout is somewhere on Carendt.com, but that site now doesn't seem to have a search facility, so I can't find it!

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Spitfire

 

As someone who has a similar stash, can I ask whether you've checked modern Minitrains performance through Shinohara points? I haven't got around to introducing my small Minitrains stash to my small Shinohara stash!

 

I used Shinohara on a layout that I built in the 1980s, and liked the track and points a lot, ideal for 'industrial' narrow gauge, but found that the points weren't compatible with anything like all of the then available r-t-r N/HOe wheel-sets. IIRC I replaced all of the Roco 'tiny wagon' wheels with US N gauge plastic ones (I can't recall the make, but they were very good), but the older Eggerbahn wheels were fine, because they had a thinner flange. For locos, I used either Eggerbahn or scratch-built onto US N mechanisms; British and European N loco wheels again had 'too thick' flanges.

 

Mind you, the way my eyesight has gone downhill over the past forty years, even with glasses, both stashes might get sold on to some hawk-eyed youth!

 

Kevin

 

PS: my 1980s layout is somewhere on Carendt.com, but that site now doesn't seem to have a search facility, so I can't find it!

 

 

Ive yet to actually USE the Shinohara points on a layout and I havent any Minitrains stock.  What Im planning is all scratchbuilt so stock is irrelevant.  However Modern US wheels went through the points perfectly fine when I was just testing them.  And one of those nice micro Japanese mechanisms went through perfectly as well under power once I corrected the BTB on one of the axles.  I think the Shinohara point is a little off on the curve around the frog, but not enough to foul properly adjusted wheelsets. 

But I will have to modify the switch rails on the points to give a little more definite contact between switch and frog.  Not pleased by the "fishplate barely holding the two rails in alignment" method they used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That last point is indeed the weakness, and what eventually caused the throwing-away of my 1980s layout. 

 

Everything was fine while it was kept in a warm house and used fairly frequently, but it was then stored for many years in the unheated loft of a garage. When I got it down and started to test it, I realised that those 'loose fishplates', and the switch rails had oxidised to a degree where they wouldn't conduct. It would have been possible to restore the circuits via bonds and microswitches, which is what I should have used in the first place, but by that time the layout was a mere curiosity, in that I'd moved on to 16mm/ft live steam in the garden.

 

BTW, nickel-silver oxide is supposed to be a conductive material, but whatever it is that actually forms as a skin on long-exposed NS definitely isn't conductive, so must be more complex that a mere oxide, or perhaps its a mix of the oxides of the individual alloying metals. I've seen NS rail on other long-disused, cold-stored layouts acquire the same patina of non-conductive material.

Edited by Nearholmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

That last point is indeed the weakness, and what eventually caused the throwing-away of my 1980s layout. 

 

Everything was fine while it was kept in a warm house and used fairly frequently, but it was then stored for many years in the unheated loft of a garage. When I got it down and started to test it, I realised that those 'loose fishplates', and the switch rails had oxidised to a degree where they wouldn't conduct. It would have been possible to restore the circuits via bonds and microswitches, which is what I should have used in the first place, but by that time the layout was a mere curiosity, in that I'd moved on to 16mm/ft live steam in the garden.

 

BTW, nickel-silver oxide is supposed to be a conductive material, but whatever it is that actually forms as a skin on long-exposed NS definitely isn't conductive, so must be more complex that a mere oxide, or perhaps its a mix of the oxides of the individual alloying metals. I've seen NS rail on other long-disused, cold-stored layouts acquire the same patina of non-conductive material.

Ideally before I begin this little micro layout (if it ever even happens) Ill rebuild the points to have more reliable switch rails. 

 

That last point though is a concern for all small scale models and why I will never understand why some people on this forum will always insist that you should use as few power feeds as possible whenever the question of wiring comes up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks all for your replies.

So I tried Peco joiners, but they are not compatible with Minitrains track.

What you see on the video is even what I have between two coupons...

So I decided to buy Peco flexible OO9 track. But I'm not fully comfortable with flexible tracks. It's always a challenge to lay it down.

 

Then comes my next question.

My plan is to lay down the track on an A3 paper-faced foamcore ("carton plume" in French since I'm not sure of my translation into English). I will take off the skin of the foamcore before laying down the track.

There will also be a bridge under a straight piece of track.

My question: In which order should I proceed ?

- First laying down the track and then cut the foamcore along the track and where the bridge will be

- Or first cut the foamcore and then laying down the track

The difficulty for me is that, with flexible track, it's difficult to be sure of the exact track path.

 

Thanks by advance for your views.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a baseboard under the foamboard or is it being used as the baseboard? If the former then I'd ask why are you using the foamboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The track plan will be flat on the foamboard.

And between the foamboard and the baseboard, there will be thick pillars made of expanded polystyrene, so that I can have my bridge and some negative relief.

At this stage, I don't know yet what the height of these pillars will be.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I see, thanks. Personally I'd lay the track base (foamboard) before laying the track, especially if you are not 100% certain on how it will pan out. The main thing you need to do is make sure the trackbed is flat. I'm not sure why you are so worried about flexi track, just treat it as an extra long piece of set-track that you can bend yourself! I assume you will be gluing the track to the foamboard so I'll ask what glue you intend to use but leave it to others to advise if it's the best stuff as I don't use foamboard for that purpose!

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.