Better point geometry for OO gauge layouts

[Philou]

@kevinlms I agree electrofrog would have been the business, but I did a module for my club. As I'm moving over to Code 75, I just used up my stock of points, and track, that I had - most of them I bought in the early 80s (95p sticker still on the packets).

 

Here's a heads-up regarding track - as mentioned I bought a lot of track in the 80s. It had been stored in the dry and dark. However, the plastic goes brittle - as I found out. The pointwork was unaffected.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

BTW, my earlier reply crossed with that of Kevin, as this one is going to do, too!

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, Dungrange said:

 

Unfortunately, there are some people who have no issues with mixing stock from different periods and these even appear at exhibitions.  Personally, I don't like it, but such layouts tend not to be particularly 'fine-scale', so I still agree with your point about trying to model everything to the same standard.

 

 

I'd say there is a lot more than two different groups of people within this hobby, but if we limit the discussion to the prototype, then I broadly agree.

 

There is a group for whom the locomotives are all that matter - it's what they went to spot in their youth.  As such, they tend to obsess over details between different members of the same class - personally I don't care too much and I agree with you that many locomotive look the same.  For some that interest extended beyond the locomotive to the rest of the train, but the number of people interested in coaching stock and wagons is generally less than the number who are interested in the locomotives.

 

There are of course, as you highlight, those who are interested in the civil engineering side of the railway - the structures (viaducts, tunnels, bridges, platforms, station buildings) and of course the track.  Having studied civil engineering at university, I find these elements as interesting as the trains themselves.  However, I'd say that my greatest interest actually lies in operational items like timetabling and signalling - understanding how the railway operates as a transport system.

 

However, we can also subdivide the railway modelling hobby into those who like to buy ready to run models and those who gain most of their enjoyment from the construction of kits (which sometimes are rarely used after they are built).  We also have those who like the wiring to be as simple as possible, while we also have people at the other end of the scale, who want computer control and obsess about the endless tweaking of DCC CVs to improve the running characteristics.  Some care about the scenery outside of the railway fence, while others don't.

 

Ultimately, the hobby should be fun and therefore we should pursue whatever interests us most and sadly track is not that interesting to the majority of modellers (even if those who find it fascinating don't understand why so many people are simply not interested).

Others of course are interested in the TIMETABLE and would be quite happy running blocks of wood up and down, as long as they run to TIME.

 

I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with running a timetable, I have done so on a few layouts. Usually the layout owner ran mixed period/country/owner trains, which several operators. But I do find it infinitely preferable, to watching trains circle an oval for several laps, then put into a loop, while another train does several laps. Rinse and repeat.

[martin_wynne]

33 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Others of course are interested in the TIMETABLE and would be quite happy running blocks of wood up and down, as long as they run to TIME,

 

 

and carry a tail lamp.

[hayfield]

3 hours ago, Dungrange said:

 

Unfortunately, there are some people who have no issues with mixing stock from different periods and these even appear at exhibitions.  Personally, I don't like it, but such layouts tend not to be particularly 'fine-scale', so I still agree with your point about trying to model everything to the same standard.

 

 

I have a very good friend, who has no interest in the scenic side of the hobby or running trains in prototypical formations

 

He buys the locos he likes, runs them on his loft layout set up more like the layouts on the Triang catalogue front covers of old and not that bothered if the train is pulling the correct stock

 

He just loves to play trains, seeing them run then parking them up in a station. Nothing wrong with this at all and the Peco track system is perfect for him. Everything in harmony recreating trainsets of his youth. 

[PMP]

1 hour ago, Philou said:

@PMP I like that! I can see you've included the welded electrical connections (sorry - don't know the proper name).

 

What did you use to get that slightly mucky look? As you will have seen, my local materials consist mainly of coarse builders' sand - though I shall stop one day at a memorial maker (definitely not a dying business round here) and ask what they do with the granite chips/dust.

 

My 'mucky' area -TMD - is still not quite dirty enough. I find the sieved sand just drinks up all coloured washes. Perhaps I just need to persevere.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

http://nevardmedia.blogspot.com/2011/08/creating-effect-of-ash-ballast.html?m=1
 

It’s my version of chris’ technique here.

[Jeff Smith]

It's interesting that controversial subjects such as this generate so many responses.

 

I remember my track epiphany at The Model Railway Show in London in about the mid 1980s.  I had a code 100 dead frog Streamline based exhibition layout (not at the show) which I was fairly happy with but when browsing the static model display cases noticed that most of the models were standing on chaired BH track.  Suddenly my Streamline looked wrong.  The only way to get chaired track then was to buy white metal, or plastic ones from K&L.  It was only a short logical step to P4.......and the Scalefour Society, which encourages modeling the whole railway to scale.

[BMS]

One thing which puzzles me is model rail height. 

I understand, for example, that model code 100  represents a real rail height of 100mm (4mm)

British Steel provides rail to the railways and their MINIMUM EN13674-1 rail height is 145mm and ranges up to 172mm. Therefore TALLER than code 100.

This is (obviously) for current railways - historically obviously  smaller sections were used.

So is 85mm (code 85) actually used in new installations on the real railway?

 

Comments?

 

[BMS]

Sorry, 142 mm is the minimum size

[Joseph_Pestell]

9 minutes ago, BMS said:

One thing which puzzles me is model rail height. 

I understand, for example, that model code 100  represents a real rail height of 100mm (4mm)

British Steel provides rail to the railways and their MINIMUM EN13674-1 rail height is 145mm and ranges up to 172mm. Therefore TALLER than code 100.

This is (obviously) for current railways - historically obviously  smaller sections were used.

So is 85mm (code 85) actually used in new installations on the real railway?

 

Comments?

 

 

Code 100 does not refer in any way to the real railway. It is 100/1000ths of an inch in height (so 7.62 inches real height when working at 4mm/1ft scale).

Edited September 17, 2020 by Joseph_Pestell

[Gibbo675]

3 minutes ago, BMS said:

One thing which puzzles me is model rail height. 

I understand, for example, that model code 100  represents a real rail height of 100mm (4mm)

British Steel provides rail to the railways and their MINIMUM EN13674-1 rail height is 145mm and ranges up to 172mm. Therefore TALLER than code 100.

This is (obviously) for current railways - historically obviously  smaller sections were used.

So is 85mm (code 85) actually used in new installations on the real railway?

 

Comments?

 

Hi BMS,

 

I've just measured some Hornby code 100 and it is .100" or to put it another way 2.54mm this scales at 193.55mm.

 

Flat bottom rail that is 172mm tall approximates to .085" or code 85 rail.

 

Gibbo.

[BMS]

1 minute ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi BMS,

 

I've just measured some Hornby code 100 and it is .100" or to put it another way 2.54mm this scales at 193.55mm.

 

Flat bottom rail that is 172mm tall approximates to .085" or code 85 rail.

 

Gibbo.

Thanks for that  and Joseph - glad to be corrected. 

[Colin_McLeod]

On 16/09/2020 at 08:34, hayfield said:

 

Its a very strange situation, these modelers/collectors are more than happy to pay £200+ on a highly detailed loco, demanding the highest standards of detail and a wide range of liveries. Yet are totally blind to an incorrect gauge and worst happy to plonk their 4 mm scale stock on to H0 scale track compounding it with a very much overscale rail of the wrong profile....Snip...

 

There is nearly always a poster that can't resist mentioning that 16.5mm is narrow. Must be a derivative of Goodwin's law.

[Compound2632]

One need to be broad rather than narrow minded. The track gauge of 16.5 mm is narrow if one is modelling British, Irish, Indian, etc. railways at 4 mm/ft; it's pretty much spot on if one is modelling British / European / North American railways at 3.5 mm/ft or 600 mm / 2 ft gauge railways at 1/3 in/ft (1:36). Does anyone do the latter?

[hayfield]

23 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

 

There is nearly always a poster that can't resist mentioning that 16.5mm is narrow. Must be a derivative of Goodwin's law.

 

 

Colin

 

What is 00 gauge then, many buyer of RTR models state that they buy these models for their exquisite details and livery, when the manufacturer gets a detail wrong they are panned !!!

 

Strangely enough they are happy for a minor detail like gauge to be widely inaccurate, by the way I model in an inaccurate gauge (EM) and as I like older whitemetal kits the details are also not up to todays exacting standards 

[Jeff Smith]

A bit off thread but somehow these exquisite models are also disfigured with the TLCs.....but that's a whole other subject......

 

It was obviously a difficult decision by Peco to stick to Streamline point geometry with the BH range or move to more prototype as with the US Code 83 range.  Probably they should have made the change.....as I'm sure the BH purchasers are more discerning......!

[kevinlms]

 

32 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

A bit off thread but somehow these exquisite models are also disfigured with the TLCs.....but that's a whole other subject......

 

It was obviously a difficult decision by Peco to stick to Streamline point geometry with the BH range or move to more prototype as with the US Code 83 range.  Probably they should have made the change.....as I'm sure the BH purchasers are more discerning......!

I suspect Peco are more interested in what the majority of their ACTUAL customers want. It's always impossible to guess an hypothetical market.

The US Code 83 was a known market, as other manufacturers (made by/for US manufacturers, unsurprisingly!) already produce it.

 

I remember years ago reading a comment by Cyril Freezer, about Peco considering making EM track. They didn't go ahead, because no one could agree as to what standards they wanted it!

 

The answer is for those who want specific track made by Peco, is to do what the EM Gauge Society has done recently and paid Peco to make it for them and market it themselves.

Edited September 27, 2020 by kevinlms
Some weird copy & paste!

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

What is 00 gauge then, many buyer of RTR models state that they buy these models for their exquisite details and livery, when the manufacturer gets a detail wrong they are panned !!!

 

Strangely enough they are happy for a minor detail like gauge to be widely inaccurate, 

 

We're stuck with the historical compromise of 00 gauge for commercial RTR 4 mm/ft scale models but that's not an excuse for not getting as much else as possible right.

[hayfield]

7 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

We're stuck with the historical compromise of 00 gauge for commercial RTR 4 mm/ft scale models but that's not an excuse for not getting as much else as possible right.

 

I do accept this, and we all have to compromise in one way or another,

 

At least there is a move away from H0 scale track to 00 gauge and there are more modelers who are demanding a better looking product

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

 

Colin

 

What is 00 gauge then, many buyer of RTR models state that they buy these models for their exquisite details and livery, when the manufacturer gets a detail wrong they are panned !!!

 

Strangely enough they are happy for a minor detail like gauge to be widely inaccurate, by the way I model in an inaccurate gauge (EM) and as I like older whitemetal kits the details are also not up to todays exacting standards 

But Colin is correct, it is tedious for the topic to come up in every single discussion. Fact is 00 isn't going anywhere, there is simply too much around, as it's been the commercial standard for almost a century! If you discount the foreign pioneers, then it comes down to Hornby Dublo making a commercial decision of their BRITISH models to an incorrect 00 gauge in 1938.

 

As some posters on RMweb will state often, HD just works & bits don't drop off as it goes around the track! And no, I'm not a believer to that train of thought.

Edited September 27, 2020 by kevinlms

[martin_wynne]

20 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

We're stuck with the historical compromise of 00 gauge for commercial RTR 4 mm/ft scale models but that's not an excuse for not getting as much else as possible right.

 

It is that compromise which allows the rest to be right. If you had an exact-scale track gauge with RTR wheels, they wouldn't fit inside a scale-width model. It would need to have oversize splashers, widened valve gear, over-wide bogie side frames, etc., to accommodate the wheels (as H0 does).

 

The only way to have a scale-size model on a scale-size track gauge is to use scale-size wheels, as in P4. Then you would need very carefully laid track on a very flat baseboard demanding good carpentry skills, gentle curves no less than about 4ft radius in 4mm/ft scale, all totally unsuited to the RTR market.

 

Folks will keep referring to 00 gauge as an "error" or a "mistake", when in fact it is a sensible way to have good-looking models capable of running on train-set curves. Those who designed it did actually know what they were doing.

 

Martin.

Edited September 27, 2020 by martin_wynne

[Dungrange]

On 16/09/2020 at 14:57, maico said:

I don't use it myself, but the current range of Rocoline track scores with things like R9 to R10 turnouts available with or without ballast.

 

 

Does anyone know whether Roco produce templates for these in the way that Peco do?  The website (https://www.roco.cc/en/product/22677-0-0-0-0-0-0-005002003-0/products.html) states that the radius of main track and branch track 826.4 mm (R9), arc angle 30°.  However, the BWI9/10 description would imply that whilst the inner curve may be 826.4 mm, the outer radius may be R10, which seems to be 888 mm (https://www.roco.cc/en/product/22666-0-0-0-0-0-0-005002004-0/products.html).  I'm wondering which is correct?

 

One thing I note is that the check rails seem quite short (ie they don't look as though they extend very far beyond the tip of the common crossing).

 

I'm wondering how easy it would be to combine these to create a curved scissors crossing - I really want one at the entrance to my fiddle yard and don't relish the prospect of hand building one.

[Jeff Smith]

43 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

The only way to have a scale-size model on a scale-size track gauge is to use scale-size wheels, as in P4. Then you would need very carefully laid track on a very flat baseboard demanding good carpentry skills, gentle curves no less than about 4ft radius in 4mm/ft scale, all totally unsuited to the RTR market.

P4 track needs to be laid fairly well in terms of gauge and check rail gaps but the compensation built into most P4 models allows for some rail height unevenness.  My 30 year old layout has some steps and gaps at the board joins that would be very hard to correct but the stock runs over them as the gauge alignment is ok.

 

When I went back to OO standards for On30/O-16.5 I was surprised at the side play of wheels in the track.

[Clive Mortimore]

00, or EM or P4?

Home made track, or kit turnouts or ready to play trackwork?

 

We all have different aims in our wonderful hobby, so does it really matter what choice of track someone else has made and why they have made it if you are enjoying what you model?

[Gibbo675]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

We're stuck with the historical compromise of 00 gauge for commercial RTR 4 mm/ft scale models but that's not an excuse for not getting as much else as possible right.

Hi Stephen,

 

Speaking as a production engineer it seems to me that it ought to be a relatively easy exercise to design any and all new models to accept OO, EM, P4 wheelsets and offer said wheels and or axles as optional extras, (think wireless sets and indicator switches as offered by BMW), for those that wish to have them. Perhaps even have them factory fitted within production runs of various models produced. Looking at livery options that ought not to be too much of a problem.

 

Gibbo.

[Foulounoux]

1 hour ago, Dungrange said:

 

Does anyone know whether Roco produce templates for these in the way that Peco do?  The website (https://www.roco.cc/en/product/22677-0-0-0-0-0-0-005002003-0/products.html) states that the radius of main track and branch track 826.4 mm (R9), arc angle 30°.  However, the BWI9/10 description would imply that whilst the inner curve may be 826.4 mm, the outer radius may be R10, which seems to be 888 mm (https://www.roco.cc/en/product/22666-0-0-0-0-0-0-005002004-0/products.html).  I'm wondering which is correct?

 

One thing I note is that the check rails seem quite short (ie they don't look as though they extend very far beyond the tip of the common crossing).

 

I'm wondering how easy it would be to combine these to create a curved scissors crossing - I really want one at the entrance to my fiddle yard and don't relish the prospect of hand building one.

Hi

Some (one?) of the French Model Railway magazines often had a pull out section with a manufacturer point work template including Peco and Roco

 

I can't remember if its RMF or Loco Revue as my recent copies are sans supplement

 

Colin