Current / future 4mm finescale track option clarification

[martin_wynne]

29 minutes ago, foggyjames said:

is there any further pro/con to plastic and glue over copper-clad and soldered construction (beyond "adjustability" with solder)?

 

Hi James,

 

A drawback of copper-clad is the need to cut insulation gaps in the copper surface of the timbers, and disguise them. Some folks make a narrow saw-cut, and fill it with a filler. Others prefer to abrade away a wider area of copper using an abrasive disc in a Dremel tool, which gets "lost" under the paint. The gaps need careful cleaning and testing -- a stray whisker of copper in the gap can cause a short-circuit years later which is extremely difficult to find. Fortunately copper-clad track can be vigorously attacked with a stiff brush in soap and water, which is also needed to remove stray acid flux.

 

A soldered-construction method you haven't mentioned is the traditional "Brook Smith" riveted ply system, invented by Joe Brook Smith in the 1960s. Still available from the EMGS and Scalefour societies, nowadays with precision laser-cut plywood timbers. It's still very popular with long-standing track builders in EM and P4, but not much used in 00 (although there is no reason not to).

 

Thick-headed tubular copper/brass rivets are inserted and clenched in 0.8mm plywood timbers. The rail is soldered to the rivet heads. Cosmetic half-chairs can be added as required. Essentially similar to the Vero pin method in copper-clad, but usable with plywood timbers (looks better, no gapping needed).

 

Tony Wilkins wrote a detailed guide to turnout building using ply and rivet, here:

 

https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5727

 

It contains a lot of useful info and ideas for track building using any construction method.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

29 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi James,

 

A drawback of copper-clad is the need to cut insulation gaps in the copper surface of the timbers, and disguise them. Some folks make a narrow saw-cut, and fill it with a filler. Others prefer to abrade away a wider area of copper using an abrasive disc in a Dremel tool, which gets "lost" under the paint. The gaps need careful cleaning and testing -- a stray whisker of copper in the gap can cause a short-circuit years later which is extremely difficult to find. Fortunately copper-clad track can be vigorously attacked with a stiff brush in soap and water, which is also needed to remove stray acid flux.

 

A soldered-construction method you haven't mentioned is the traditional "Brook Smith" riveted ply system, invented by Joe Brook Smith in the 1960s. Still available from the EMGS and Scalefour societies, nowadays with precision laser-cut plywood timbers. It's still very popular with long-standing track builders in EM and P4, but not much used in 00 (although there is no reason not to).

 

Thick-headed tubular copper/brass rivets are inserted and clenched in 0.8mm plywood timbers. The rail is soldered to the rivet heads. Cosmetic half-chairs can be added as required. Essentially similar to the Vero pin method in copper-clad, but usable with plywood timbers (looks better, no gapping needed).

 

Tony Wilkins wrote a detailed guide to turnout building using ply and rivet, here:

 

https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5727

 

It contains a lot of useful info and ideas for track building using any construction method.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

 

The benefit of using 0.5 mm double sided copperclad as risers, is that it self insulates (providing you do not use cast brass chairs

[foggyjames]

Thanks for your further thoughts, all!

 

Dave John - that turnout looks great! Could you briefly outline the rationale for using the mix of construction materials?

 

cheers

 

James

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, foggyjames said:

Thanks for your further thoughts, all!

 

Dave John - that turnout looks great! Could you briefly outline the rationale for using the mix of construction materials?

 

cheers

 

James

 

 

James

 

Building track can be a bit contentious, with everyone having their own favorite build methods and style of building.

 

Some find it very difficult to build a common crossing as a sub assembly

Others prefer soldering rail to copperclad timbers either so they can easily tweak the join or they just do not trust the joint to be able to maintain the gauge. In other words ease or fear

 

I have proved you can build a turnout to p4 standards using a soldered together Vee and using the plastic chairs functionally. But each to their own and all that matters is getting to where you want to using the method that best suites you

[Dave John]

Well, a long time back I decided to model pre-grouping Caledonian in 4mm. I messed about with track and wheels , made a few wagons to OO and EM and decided on EM. The first layout I made used what was then K+L parts , plastic sleepers and chairs. I had a go at interlacing the sleepers, but the resultant points were always a bit prone to movement and needed a fair amount of messing about with. It was ok, but as time went on and the CRA published more info I could see my errors. 

 

So when I came to build the new layout I had all the info to get it right. To an extent that defined the parts , 8' 11 1/2 " narrow sleepers, 4 bolt chairs , 30' rail length. I also had drawings showing the Caledonians sleeper spacings for running lengths and joints and the interlaced sleeper patterns used. 

 

When I started making points for the new layout I thought about the bits of a point that give problems if they get a bit out of position. The toe of the point, and the bit at the crossing vee. So I used copperclad at those places to make sure they were solid and stayed put. Particularly important at the vee since the  interleaved sleepers in plastic could be a bit wobbly there. All the track was laid and sorted, the cosmetic chairs glued on afterwards. 

 

As Martin Wynne says  you have to be careful to ensure that the copperclad insulates. Hayfields point about using a bit of double sided copperclad as a riser is a good tip. I used a burr on the minidrill and filled the gap once it was all down. I'm also a bit vicious about testing stuff, all my track was hit with 250 V off a megger. That shows the stray faults up quite quickly. 

 

A lot of this falls down to finding a method that suits your own style of building. I think you have the right approach; get samples and mess about. Examine the prototype and see which method creates track which looks like the prototype to you. 

 

Hope that helps James. 

 

 

[foggyjames]

Very helpful - thanks to you both!

 

So, in summary, copper-clad is likely to be a little more stable (which may or may not be an issue), but care is required to avoid shorts? I am familiar with what a Megger might do to a stray slither of copper, and it sounds like a fun way to test that you've got everything cleanly isolated!

 

cheers

 

James

Edited July 9, 2020 by foggyjames

[Michael Edge]

You don't have to gap the copper clad sleepers in the middle, I do it close to one rail and it's invisible - at least from one side. 

[polybear]

Personally, I'm always a little dubious about the longevity of plastic based trackwork - which may be a concern if you are building a "lifetime layout".  The risk of the plastic going brittle with age etc etc. or due to the effect of paints, solvents, track cleaning methods over time.  I'm sure there will now be a string of replies saying how their plastic trackwork layout is twenty years old etc with no ill-effects etc.  But can those same people show evidence that the same plastics are being used today that were used then - or has the old stuff been outlawed by europe as harmful?  Added to which people's layouts don't all experience the same environment (temperature, light etc.) or exposure to solvents.  Admittedly, no doubt not an issue if you skip a layout every five years and start again....

[polybear]

10 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

You don't have to gap the copper clad sleepers in the middle, I do it close to one rail and it's invisible - at least from one side. 

 

And especially if you are fitting dummy plastic chairs, as these will cover much of the gap

[hayfield]

11 hours ago, Dave John said:

Well, a long time back I decided to model pre-grouping Caledonian in 4mm. I messed about with track and wheels , made a few wagons to OO and EM and decided on EM. The first layout I made used what was then K+L parts , plastic sleepers and chairs. I had a go at interlacing the sleepers, but the resultant points were always a bit prone to movement and needed a fair amount of messing about with. It was ok, but as time went on and the CRA published more info I could see my errors. 

 

So when I came to build the new layout I had all the info to get it right. To an extent that defined the parts , 8' 11 1/2 " narrow sleepers, 4 bolt chairs , 30' rail length. I also had drawings showing the Caledonians sleeper spacings for running lengths and joints and the interlaced sleeper patterns used. 

 

When I started making points for the new layout I thought about the bits of a point that give problems if they get a bit out of position. The toe of the point, and the bit at the crossing vee. So I used copperclad at those places to make sure they were solid and stayed put. Particularly important at the vee since the  interleaved sleepers in plastic could be a bit wobbly there. All the track was laid and sorted, the cosmetic chairs glued on afterwards. 

 

As Martin Wynne says  you have to be careful to ensure that the copperclad insulates. Hayfields point about using a bit of double sided copperclad as a riser is a good tip. I used a burr on the minidrill and filled the gap once it was all down. I'm also a bit vicious about testing stuff, all my track was hit with 250 V off a megger. That shows the stray faults up quite quickly. 

 

A lot of this falls down to finding a method that suits your own style of building. I think you have the right approach; get samples and mess about. Examine the prototype and see which method creates track which looks like the prototype to you. 

 

Hope that helps James. 

 

 

 

 

If you are going back to the K&L days I assume you were using the thin plastic sleepers and timbers, if so a known problem is that as the solvent dries it shrinks and the plastic curls upwards and gauge narrowing occurs. This is prevented by using the thicker 1.6 mm sleepers and timbers

[roythebus]

An interesting discussion and quite contentious in a lot of ways! Over the years I've built several layout, including the Model Railway Club's "New Annington", a large exhibition layout in OO gauge. That used copper clad track with Kings Cross bullhead rail. I used Kings Cross templates for the points and a lot of hand-drawn bits using the Kings Cross templates as a basis. That was built to BRMSB standards and worked remarkably well and looked good. The track worked well with a variety of wheels. What mattered was the finished appearance. 

 

Since then I've built a German layout using Peco code 75, indeed it was probably the first layout on the exhibition circuit to use the then new code 75 track, and it certainly had the first code 75 double slip! That too worked well and looked good.

 

The latest project which has been ongoing for about 15 years has been a large layout. I originally built it using a mixture of Peco code 75 and Tillig to give a mixture of pointwork geometry but it didn't look right, so the whole lot was lifted and rebuilt using Templot planning and C&L components. I had a lot of "scale" bullhead track from a previous home project. I made the mistake of using the fine-scale OO (DOOGAF I think it was called) on pointwork which meant pushing all the wheel out to 14.8 back to back. That never worked well, so it was all converted to  16.2mm through the points, with a lot being rebuilt. that seems to work very well.

 

I've had plastic based thin sleeper track laid for over 10 years and that has lasted well as have the original points. There's been a couple of bits that have lifted, but nothing serious. Later pointwork including single and double slips have been a bit of a mixture with copper clad at strategic places and the rest plastic based. 

 

I would assume your layout will be a small BLT with maybe 6 points? Nothing too much to worry about. If you're not sure, there's a couple of people on here who can offer a professional track building service for you. I don't know what your budget is, but if you want good looking and reliable pointwork with only 6 to make, it may well be worth your while contacting one of these. I believe Hayfield is one of those.

 

I've recently undertaken building the OO track for the Folkestone club's "Alkham Valley" layout. That was originally EM but the builder passed away and nobody in the club had any EM stock to run on it!

 

As others have said, there's very little straight track on the real railway. On the MRC layout the only straights were in the loco shed and the hidden loops. On my own home layout again the loco shed roads are straight. On Alkham Valley the goods shed road is straight!

[hayfield]

31 minutes ago, polybear said:

Personally, I'm always a little dubious about the longevity of plastic based trackwork - which may be a concern if you are building a "lifetime layout".  The risk of the plastic going brittle with age etc etc. or due to the effect of paints, solvents, track cleaning methods over time.  I'm sure there will now be a string of replies saying how their plastic trackwork layout is twenty years old etc with no ill-effects etc.  But can those same people show evidence that the same plastics are being used today that were used then - or has the old stuff been outlawed by europe as harmful?  Added to which people's layouts don't all experience the same environment (temperature, light etc.) or exposure to solvents.  Admittedly, no doubt not an issue if you skip a layout every five years and start again....

 

I have like you have said some plastic turnouts for years with the only ill effect of the thin plastic timbers curling due to the solvent drying out. On the other hand I have had some chairs go brittle after a short while, which I was informed was due to the plastic being too hot during the injection molding process, If you don't trust plastic turnouts don't use plastic flexitrack .

 

As for track cleaning products, be careful what you use

[roythebus]

Having just seen Hayfield's latest reply come to think of it I've had some problems with the thin sleepers curling up, but not on track that has been firmly glued down. If I were starting again I'd use thicker sleepers.

[hayfield]

1 minute ago, roythebus said:

Having just seen Hayfield's latest reply come to think of it I've had some problems with the thin sleepers curling up, but not on track that has been firmly glued down. If I were starting again I'd use thicker sleepers.

 

That is what you have to do to overcome the issue. Glue both ends of each timber/sleeper down firmly when solvent is used on them

 

Trouble is if you are using closed cell foam as an underlay this cannot be done. But the curling of thin plastic is something which has been recognized for ages

[Paul Cram]

The original K&L track had thick sleepers. It was when Alan Gibson became involved in the sale that thim sleepers were produced to match existing OO track. Thick sleepers were also produced. Allof the track work I have done has used thick sleepers. The track o Hawes was started in the mid 90s and despite being kept in a variety of conditions is not a problem. It has been painted. Some of the chairs from 1 batch were very brittle but these were produced when the moulding was outsourced.

[foggyjames]

Thanks again to you all for your additional perspectives.

 

To put the cat among the pigeons, my length of Peco Bullhead flexi turned up today (in less than 24 hours...and from the IoM!)...and I am impressed. I wasn't expecting to be. If anything, I think it might have the edge on the Legacy track in terms of general appearance. It's certainly a world away from regular Code 75. It has the same (vertically) 'offset' chairs as the Legacy track, which in this case seem to be giving one rail a cant (while the other looks to be perfectly upright). I've seem comment about the loose fit in the Legacy chairs in other threads - but with my samples, that's an issue with the Peco length rather than the Legacy. The proof of the pudding will be in the turnouts, I suspect.

 

Rest assured that if I do end up taking the path of least resistance and going for Peco Bullhead this time around, this discussion has not been in vain - the thoughts are very much being stored for future use (whether that be near or distant). I expect that this will be the first of several layouts (hopefully to exist concurrently, rather than being skipped!). If I get chance, I might just dig out the diorama I built around the age of 10 and pop it in a thread - it's still in the loft! I at least have plans for the long main line layout I mentioned before, and a dabble in OO9 and N, and there's a chance that the lifted track beyond Churston (and hence I suspect all of it!) might get re-laid, if I can convince my Dad (for whom this layout is being built) to sacrifice the other three walls of the room in question, given that he is quite keen on a continuous run...!

 

As a matter of interest, it seems like most of the track building discussion centres around 4mm scale. I'm conscious that C&L (and possibly others) also do components in 2mm and 7mm, but I presume there's elevated interest (at least that is my perception) in 4mm because of the "scale issues" which exist with OO?

 

cheers

 

James

[roythebus]

13 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

That is what you have to do to overcome the issue. Glue both ends of each timber/sleeper down firmly when solvent is used on them

 

Trouble is if you are using closed cell foam as an underlay this cannot be done. But the curling of thin plastic is something which has been recognized for ages

My track is gued to a fairly soild but fexible foam lino type underlay, I had loads left over from a bus restoration job! I used a copydex type commercial adhesive to stick the track dow. I can be lifted by soaking the area with soapy water. the glue is rubber -based.

[Junctionmad]

As a person that started with copper clad and now uses ply sleepers and plastic chairs , I’d say the 2nd method is far far better , you get correct rail height , wooden sleepers , and the ease of assembly of functional plastic chairs. Copper clad is now much more expensive then it used to be. I create my own ply sleepers from AA grade 4 sheets of ply and saw them up on a little proxxon table saw. 
 

don’t bother with pre made crossings and switch blades , make your own , it’s very easy once you’ve have made one or two. 
 

00-SF , ie 1mm flangeways and 16.2 track gauge is a fabulous compromise for points. I flare back out to 16.5 and use conventional commercial track for straights. 
 

ive used peco bull head , c&L, Smp , and dcc Concepts.   I won’t use stainless track ever again , thank you. 
the reality is that any of them used as straight track , ballasted , weathered etc , looks good. 
 

use commercial straight track , hand build the points , best compromise and remember while we are attempting to model a railway , it’s all an illusion , and a good illusion isn’t about precise numerical relationships. 

Edited July 11, 2020 by Junctionmad

[hayfield]

10 hours ago, roythebus said:

My track is gued to a fairly soild but fexible foam lino type underlay, I had loads left over from a bus restoration job! I used a copydex type commercial adhesive to stick the track dow. I can be lifted by soaking the area with soapy water. the glue is rubber -based.

 

Roy

 

Are you talking about flexi track or turnouts and crossings?

 

Thin flexi track is usually affected only when track pins distort it, thin timbers are affected by the action of solvent drying out and shrinking on one side only, certainly things like closed cell foam has insufficient strength to counteract it

 

I also use Copydex to glue both underlay to baseboards and track to underlay 

[hayfield]

7 hours ago, Junctionmad said:

As a person that started with copper clad and now uses ply sleepers and plastic chairs , I’d say the 2nd method is far far better , you get correct rail height , wooden sleepers , and the ease of assembly of functional plastic chairs. Copper clad is now much more expensive then it used to be. I create my own ply sleepers from AA grade 4 sheets of ply and saw them up on a little proxxon table saw. 
 

don’t bother with pre made crossings and switch blades , make your own , it’s very easy once you’ve have made one or two. 
 

00-SF , ie 1mm flangeways and 16.2 track gauge is a fabulous compromise for points. I flare back out to 16.5 and use conventional commercial track for straights. 
 

ive used peco bull head , c&L, Smp , and dcc Concepts.   I won’t use stainless track ever again , thank you. 
the reality is that any of them used as straight track , ballasted , weathered etc , looks good. 
 

use commercial straight track , hand build the points , best compromise and remember while we are attempting to model a railway , it’s all an illusion , and a good illusion isn’t about precise numerical relationships. 

 

 

Agree with everything except turnout timbers, with the improvements in thick plain track bases, initially with the Exactoscale fast track bases, then the new Peco bullhead 00 product and now the new C&L revised 00 gauge bullhead track, I can see no reason to use ply timbers, especially as the bond between chair and timber is not permanent.

 

Exactoscale sell a superb turnout and crossing timber sprue 4FT PTC0 which sells at £2 and gives enough material to make up to 3 turnouts and crossings. The chair to timber bond is permanent and the material is the same as the flexi track

 

If you model in either EM of P4 gauges you have an even better option which is preformed turnout and crossing bases (these may only be available from the Scalefour stores). These bases not only save time but stop the possibility of timbers with only slide chairs moving. Excellent product and very underrated and used

[foggyjames]

Thanks for your further thoughts, everyone!

 

The Peco Bullhead turnout arrived on Saturday, and I'm again impressed (although do bear in mind that all my previous trackwork was Peco Code 100, so the bar was not set high...!). I have a busy few days ahead, but I will get an order in for some samples with C&L when I can, see how I get on with building a turnout kit, and compare notes. 

 

It's certainly been a very interesting learning process, and I'm somewhat itching to devise a track plan which would make more use of free-flowing pointwork. Perhaps I'll have another look at the 'throat' area (I use the term loosely!) of the Churston plan yet!

 

cheers

 

James

[foggyjames]

At the risk of thoroughly enraging some of you, if I wanted to order a C&L kit which is *approximately* dimensionally similar to a Peco Bullhead large turnout (SL-U1188 or 1189), would I be right in saying than a B6 is probably my best bet...?

 

cheers

 

James

[martin_wynne]

Hi James,

 

An A-6 would be closer. Here's a Templot screenshot -- yellow=Peco, blue=A-6

 

 

Even closer would be a B-5:

 

 

But that's a silly size which you would struggle to find anywhere on the railway.

 

In practice C&L don't do either of those, and looking at their list your only options are A-5 (shorter than Peco) or B-6 (longer than Peco).

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

The whole benefit of building your own turnouts and crossings is not to be hamstrung with RTR restrictions.

 

I accept the best way to start is by using a kit of parts (with C&L only use the thick timbers if matching up with their new track and Peco's 00 track. Phil now has a supply of 00 gauge common crossings as well as the 1 mm flangeway older versions.

 

Do you want the same as Peco or something different ?

[foggyjames]

Thanks both!

 

You make a fair point, John - trying to match unprototypical dimensions would defeat the object of the exercise. I'm quite surprised by how close those overlays show them to be, though, even if they're odd combinations. I think the answer is probably going to be to try recreating my AnyRail plan in Templot, and to see what fits / looks right.

 

Are there so many different sizes because they were made to fit the available space on the prototype? Are there particularly common / standard turnout sizes?

At this point in time, I'm thinking primarily about the crossover at the end of my (terminus) station. I understand that the geometry will usually be bespoke at junctions, where both lines are likely to be curved to some extent, but were there standard sizes for situations like this?

 

Or, to put it another way, is there anything wrong with just using a B6, if it fits (which I think it will, given that it's quite similar to the Peco Large), and looks remotely sensible?

 

Does the letter-number terminology apply to fully-curved turnouts as well as those where the one of the roads is straight? The kits all seem to apply to the latter scenario, but I imagine that's because it's so hard to produce universal curved pointwork which is of any use.

 

cheers

 

James