Current / future 4mm finescale track option clarification

[Ravenser]

On 10/07/2020 at 16:24, foggyjames said:

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

 

If you are impressed with the new Peco bullhead , that's a good start. 

 

I would add a serious caution about C+L flexible track. There seems to be some kind of issue with chair-strike with some modern RTR . I've seen a suggestion that at some stage the mould make have sustained some slight damage and a few chairs are over height or something.

 

But the issue is real, and a modest irritation. I have seen it for myself on a largish layout. SMP does not have this problem, and nor will the new Peco Bullhead. I can't answer of DCC Concepts, though I suspect they will have made sure it doesn't. (Stray bits of ballast can cause the same kind of problem, by the way..)

 

The main limitation of Peco Bullhead at this moment is the limited range of pointwork available. I can see no real reason why this can't be supplemented by building your own points for any locations where a suitable Peco product isn't available.  I've heard many gripes about the older Peco HO track over the years, but almost never was the exact geometry of the pointwork an issue for anyone

 

I have had SMP plastic plain track down for 13 years now - it shows no sign of deterioration, so I think concerns about using plastic are unfounded 

 

Copper-clad pointwork looks rather less refined than moulded chairs. However it is extremely tough and may be easier to adjust if you get something not quite right

[hayfield]

56 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

If you are impressed with the new Peco bullhead , that's a good start. 

 

I would add a serious caution about C+L flexible track. There seems to be some kind of issue with chair-strike with some modern RTR . I've seen a suggestion that at some stage the mould make have sustained some slight damage and a few chairs are over height or something.

 

But the issue is real, and a modest irritation. I have seen it for myself on a largish layout. SMP does not have this problem, and nor will the new Peco Bullhead. I can't answer of DCC Concepts, though I suspect they will have made sure it doesn't. (Stray bits of ballast can cause the same kind of problem, by the way..)

 

The main limitation of Peco Bullhead at this moment is the limited range of pointwork available. I can see no real reason why this can't be supplemented by building your own points for any locations where a suitable Peco product isn't available.  I've heard many gripes about the older Peco HO track over the years, but almost never was the exact geometry of the pointwork an issue for anyone

 

I have had SMP plastic plain track down for 13 years now - it shows no sign of deterioration, so I think concerns about using plastic are unfounded 

 

Copper-clad pointwork looks rather less refined than moulded chairs. However it is extremely tough and may be easier to adjust if you get something not quite right

 

There was a problem with the old now unavailable thin based 00 C&L flexitrack with some RTR wheels. I accept some may still have some of this track in stock, but the tool is broken and the track unavailable for quite some time. As it is the issue being more with the coarse scale wheels some RTR companies still used than the track base.

 

I HAVE TAKEN PAINS TO SUGGEST USING THE ALL NEW C&L THICK FLEXITRACK, sorry to type in capitals but some seem to bring up old chestnuts which have no relevance to the thread. For those wanting that extra bit of detail the chairs have keys (no other flexitrack has then) and it is available in both single line and mainline versions, and the rail is a true bullhead in profile 

[martin_wynne]

7 minutes ago, hayfield said:

but some seem to bring up old chestnuts which have no relevance to the thread

 

That's a common feature of forums such as RMweb. The same old misinformation gets repeated over and over again until the end of time, no matter how many times you post a correction or update.

 

That's why I get so angry when topics are locked, instead of having offending content removed. There is then no way to go back and make amendments or corrections. And it all gets indexed on Google for 100 years.

 

Martin.

[Bernard Lamb]

26 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

There was a problem with the old now unavailable thin based 00 C&L flexitrack with some RTR wheels. I accept some may still have some of this track in stock, but the tool is broken and the track unavailable for quite some time. As it is the issue being more with the coarse scale wheels some RTR companies still used than the track base.

 

I HAVE TAKEN PAINS TO SUGGEST USING THE ALL NEW C&L THICK FLEXITRACK, sorry to type in capitals but some seem to bring up old chestnuts which have no relevance to the thread. For those wanting that extra bit of detail the chairs have keys (no other flexitrack has then) and it is available in both single line and mainline versions, and the rail is a true bullhead in profile 

In the past, when you had to use separate chairs if you wanted track with representations of the keys, I built a wooden viaduct where the chairs are supported on 20' long timbers. I continued with separate chairs for the track either side of where they were essential. It has a join at about 2/3 length and the chairs I used on the long section and at that end are fine but the chairs on the shorter section and the other end are fouled by the tender wheels on an early model Bachmann Austerity. Not enough difference to cause a derailment but just enough to give a bit of judder and a clonking sound. It just shows how little a variation can make a big difference.  The chairs were bought at the same time so I presume the difference between production batches is enough to make the difference. I probably will never get round to changing the wheels as in reality the loco has no place on the line due to weight restrictions.

Bernard

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, Bernard Lamb said:

the chairs on the shorter section and the other end are fouled by the tender wheels on an early model Bachmann Austerity.

 

File a wheel profile shape in the end of an old soldering bit. Run it quickly along the rail, just enough to melt the offending tops off the chair jaws. I remember doing an entire EM layout that way to allow the use of some old Hambling's wheels. It worked fine, and after painting no-one ever noticed.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

4 hours ago, foggyjames said:

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?

 

 

Hi James,

 

The different prototype sizes are to allow for different speed restrictions. A switch consists of a straight-ahead "main road", along which traffic can run at line speed. And a diverging "turnout road" to left or right. This involves a deflection from the main road, requiring a speed restriction. The sharper the deflection, so the lower the speed restriction. The shortest switches, size A, have a very sharp 1:24 deflection and are only ever used in yards and sidings at shunting speeds, not on running lines. The next size up, B switches, have a slighter easier deflection angle of 1:32, but are still subject to a speed restriction of around 15mph or so. They are sometimes found on running lines in trailing crossovers providing access to sidings, goods yards, etc. The next size, C (1:40), is the shortest you would normally find in facing turnouts in a running line, but still requiring a significant speed restriction over the diverging route.

 

Yes, there are some standard sizes, referred to as "natural" turnouts where the radius through the switch divergence matches the rest of the turnout curve to the V-crossing (frog). The "natural" sizes are A-7, B-8, C-10, D-12, E-16.

 

These sizes tend to be a bit more common than others, but not markedly so. Different site conditions and traffic requirements result in a wide range of other turnout sizes being used. For example a C-9 is a common size in crossovers. B-7.5 is often used for trailing connections to a diamond or slip.

 

The B-6 is a popular model size, despite being fairly rare on the prototype, because it is the shortest turnout which can reasonably look the part when used in running lines. Shorter turnouts look very obviously to belong in sidings, and look a bit daft in a running line.

 

Peco turnouts do not follow any of the above, because they are not intended to be models of the prototype. They are model "set-track" designs intended to follow a simple interchangeable train-set geometry. Trying to match one type of trackwork with the other is a fruitless task.

 

It's best to decide whether you are building model trackwork or not, and take it from there. It remains the fundamental question -- do you regard your track as a model of the prototype in the same way that a model locomotive is a model of a prototype? In 00 track can't be an exact model, in the same way that an 00 locomotive can't be an exact model. But you can follow the angles and radii and underlying principles of the prototype.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited July 14, 2020 by martin_wynne
typo

[Jeff Smith]

I would advocate using ply sleepers and plastic chairs stuck using MEK/Butanol.  My P4 K&L chairs and Brook-Smith sleeper based track, stuck to cork, has been down for 30+ years with no problems at all.

 

Plastic chairs stuck to plywood can be easily repositioned using a razor blade.  Plastic chairs on plastic sleepers are very permanent!

[foggyjames]

Many thanks for the detailed reply, Martyn!

 

This is still quite a baffling subject for the beginner, I think. I've done a fair bit of reading in the past hour or so (including this thread, which I found useful: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/146502-better-point-geometry-for-oo-gauge-layouts/), and think I have a bit more clarity, as well as concluding that I could probably answer a lot of my questions myself with a good play with Templot (which I have now downloaded).

 

Part of what I'm struggling with is what is actually wrong with the Peco geometry, and what the practical differences are. The overlays you kindly provided on the previous page show differences, but they're fairly subtle, on the face of it. So far, from my reading, it looks like the primary crime is that the Peco frog angle is too steep, which makes for an unnaturally abrupt rotation, but which allows the turnout to be compressed in length to fit in scale-length houses! Is that a fair comment? It strikes me that the difference must be relatively subtle (i.e. the extra space demand for a B-7 or B-8 over a Peco Large probably isn't that huge).

 

This image (borrowed from the 4-sf website, at the risk of stating the obvious) appears to illustrate the frog angle point quite clearly (and yes, I know it's an A!):

...although I'm a little mystified about how the Peco turnout has ended up longer, in that case! Is it because the Peco points could be laid nose-to-noise to create a crossover with a scale six-foot, whereas the A-7 would require a short length of straight track between the two turnouts to achieve the same (hence the overall crossover length is actually longer)?

 

The subject of interchangeability which you mentioned there came up in the thread I just linked to. It would have made more sense to me if there was a shallower frog angle as you step up from small-medium-large in the Peco range (and I'm not sure I see the value in being able to pair small- and large- radius turnouts in that way), but I appreciate that it is as it is! Presumably in that particular regard, the Large radius turnouts are actually worse than the Small ones, having an overly steep frog angle for their length?

 

cheers

 

James

 

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, Jeff Smith said:

I would advocate using ply sleepers and plastic chairs stuck using MEK/Butanol.  My P4 K&L chairs and Brook-Smith sleeper based track, stuck to cork, has been down for 30+ years with no problems at all.

 

Plastic chairs stuck to plywood can be easily repositioned using a razor blade.  Plastic chairs on plastic sleepers are very permanent!

 

Jeff

 

I accept stained ply timbers and sleepers look better than all but the best painted plastic/copperclad ones. However if you are going to use plastic based plain track or paint the ply in a thick coat of paint, I do not follow the logic.

 

Being ably to easily lift plastic chairs from ply timbers with either a scalpel or razor blade, I find is perhaps detrimental and plays into the hands of those who state that plastic chairs are unstable, and rails must be soldered in position.

 

I have read a lot about some track builders liking the ability to fettle the rails in a crossing, surely if the rails are set correctly they do not need fettling. In fact fettling could make matters worse, I have seen it when helping others. I know that some gauges hold the rail incorrectly resulting in gauge narrowing, quite simply they are the wrong gauges. A gauge for use with a soldered construction method must hold the rail upwards, a gauge for plastic chair construction must allow the rail to rotate into the angle the chair holds the rail

 

When Phil (C&L) was ordering a new supply of gauges the specification he required allowed for the head of the rail to rotate in the gauge.

 

However I do understand that sometimes mistakes do occur, just cut away the offending chairs and replace with chairs cut in half (in the scheme of things a few extra chairs cost little).

The bond of plastic on plastic will be far stronger than plastic on ply, also I have noticed that in reusing chairs that have (been) lifted tend to be shorter, as more material is dissolved into the ply when they are reused, and certainly replacing several chairs with new half chairs is less effective on ply timbers.

 

I do accept a well stained ply sleeper or timber looks far better that all but the very best painted counterpart. There are downsides to both methods

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, foggyjames said:

Part of what I'm struggling with is what is actually wrong with the Peco geometry

 

 

Hi James,

 

There is nothing actually "wrong" with the Peco geometry, apart from the fact that it is not based on any known prototype geometry. Whether you regard that as being "wrong" only you can say.

 

In the Peco world, the actual angle at the V-crossing is largely irrelevant. Beyond the V-crossing the track is curved* to achieve a 12-degree exit angle, at 1" offset. This means that all items are interchangeable, so that you can form a crossover with a large and small turnout if you wish, or use either to connect to the 12-degree diamond-crossing.

 

What this means is that the V-crossings are "curviform" pattern and therefore in prototype terms totally unsuitable to form crossovers, because of the sharp reverse curve in the middle. No prototype passenger train could be safely run over such a crossover at more than walking pace.

 

For an understanding of curviform V-crossings, and what they are used for, you might like to watch this Templot video:

 

 https://flashbackconnect.com/Movie.aspx?id=pu2F-wveux5-EWGYuqPd3g2

 

*not on the small radius turnouts, which have a 12-degree (1:4.7) V-crossing and straight exit. These are not (yet?) available in bullhead.

 

Saying that Peco is not prototypical is of course not strictly correct -- if you paid your local heritage railway enough money, I'm sure they would be happy to build a real turnout matching Peco exactly, including the 4ft-1.5in track gauge.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[foggyjames]

Thanks for your reply, and apologies for addressing you as Martyn earlier, Martin! I think I was picking up the 'y' from your surname, and thinking of one of my favourite musicians!

 

I will very readily admit that I'm having to pore over a lot of these messages and do an awful lot of head scratching to understand the issues at hand, and I'm still not at all sure that I'm 'getting it'. That's not remotely a criticism of the patient advice I'm receiving, just a realisation of how little I know about this subject! Given that I'm struggling to spot what the issues are, I am wondering if my days of striving for more prototypical track geometry might be still some way off...?

 

I found this page useful as a companion for the video (http://templot.com/companion/real_track.php), and this image in particular:

 

 

I get that in the context of a junction, the V-crossing type needs to match the direction of travel of the track beyond it (at least I think that's the point!).

 

In the context of crossovers, is the key point that reverse curves which directly butt up to each other are bad news, hence prototypical practice would be to do all of the rotation in each direction earlier in the turnout (nearer the blade end), and for there to be a straight section between the crossings (and that the curviform nature of the Peco points doesn't allow for that, at least not without inserting straight track between the two turnouts, and greatly exaggerating the six-foot in the process)?

 

As a follow-up to that, there is clearly a 'right-left' shimmy on the turnout curve (at least I think it's the turnout curve - I'm still a bit lost there, too!) on the 'Regular' V-crossing illustration above. Is there a short straight section through the crossing which makes it OK, or is it simply that the radii involved are sufficiently relaxed that it's just not an issue (whereas the steeper Peco turnout angles are)?

 

Presumably (space allowing) a better arrangement for that upper diagram would be for the turnout to be located off to the left somewhere (or perhaps a much longer turnout could be used), avoiding the need for the reverse curve? Visually, at least, constant-radius curves look more natural, and I presume they also make for better running (on the prototype!). Eventually I suppose that space constrains the prototype, too, though, and some compromise is needed!

 

Although my proposed crossover arrangement towards the buffer-end of the station probably wouldn't be horrible even with the Peco Bullhead (large) turnouts, and the difference (compared with, say, B-7s) somewhat marginal, I am thinking that I might be able make the 'throat' end look considerably better with completely custom pointwork than the current plan (featuring more large Peco turnouts and a Peco double slip, if that ever arrives in the BH range!). I will have a go at laying that out in Templot, and factor the advantages of that custom geometry into my C&L vs Peco debate. I have to try to hide a wall-induced 'kink' in the layout (at a point where the prototype is nominally straight), and I think this is an area where smoothing those curves out (compared with the fixed geometry of the Peco turnouts and double-slip) might really help pull off that particular illusion (or at least lessen the compromise).

 

I am happy to pointed towards a book, rather than to persist in asking elementary questions, by the way. I'm sure this happens a lot, and the same points are regurgitated, much to the frustration of the regular contributors!

 

cheers

 

James

[Andy Reichert]

13 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

That's a common feature of forums such as RMweb. The same old misinformation gets repeated over and over again until the end of time, no matter how many times you post a correction or update.

 

That's why I get so angry when topics are locked, instead of having offending content removed. There is then no way to go back and make amendments or corrections. And it all gets indexed on Google for 100 years.

 

Martin.

 

Yup. On social media, everyone is an expert, even at stuff they don't or won't do themselves. Unfortunately, the casual or uniformed observer is often swayed by the number of posts and/or posters, even of supposed "free lunch" solutions, rather than by correct and thorough evaluation.  Such publicly strongly promoted ideas can usually be better judged by if and when they get taken up by the mainstream manufacturers. Their livelihoods depend on them doing equally attractive things that instead work 100% reliably and and are cost effective, rather than just sounding "obvious"and "simple" to the layman. 

 

I must say that I always research prototype engineering material  and the relevant physics  for my track manufacturing projects, rather than rely on modelling magazines or forums un-source-referenced articles. Too often magazines suggest modellers shortcut the design work and instead copy or modify other peoples' praised models, without going back to first principles and actually checking how accurate and correct those model are. And so they perpetuate and extend the latter's compromises and errors.

 

Andy

 

 

[martin_wynne]

4 hours ago, foggyjames said:

I am happy to pointed towards a book, rather than to persist in asking elementary questions, by the way.

 

 

Hi James,

 

This is the book you may be looking for:

 

 

 from: https://www.thepwi.org/shop/product_details?id=11

 

However, it would be better to get the original, if you can find editions 1, 2, or 3 of "BRT" on second-hand book sites:

 

 https://www.abebooks.co.uk/British-Railway-Track-Design-Construction-Maintenance/22082007744/bd

 

They are becoming harder to find now. Later editions have limited or no information about bullhead track, hence the PWI published the book in the first link. But it's a poor substitute for the original, and difficult to read if you are new to the subject, being mainly for present-day p.w. engineers.

 

If you meant modelmaker's track books, see:

 

from: https://gwsg.org.uk/GWSG_Publications.html

 

from: http://www.2mm.org.uk/products/nms/index.html

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited July 15, 2020 by martin_wynne

[hayfield]

James

 

Rather than getting bogged down in minute detail (that many of us do not understand anyway) The first thing is Templot has done all the research for us. Do we need to get sidetracked away from the real reason for building your own track, which is better looking and performing trackwork

 

Secondly and more importantly is hand building track in conjunction with Templot allows us the freedom to plan and build free flowing track. 

 

Very few places had straight track and using any form of set track unless skillfully altered and laid, looks like its just that a group of Set Track

 

Until recently the most popular brand sold H0 scale trackwork, it now has a limited selection of 00 gauge 4 mm scale track

[foggyjames]

Thanks Both!

 

Thanks for the links, Martin. I will ponder some book shopping!

 

Point taken John, and I think the time is fast approaching for me to dive into having a play with Templot-ising my AnyRail plan. My concern is that (rather like with my friend's views on interior design!), I'm slightly struggling to anticipate where the issues are going to come from, and I am concerned about garbage-in, garbage-out. In other words, does Templot encourage prototypical practice, or is it only as good as the (in my case limited and quite likely incorrect!) knowledge you apply to it?

 

I must admit that even coming into this conversation I had no idea that there was so much to the subject. I suppose that's part of the issue with sectional track (albeit I was only planning to use sectional pointwork!) - it gives you a false impression of the prototype, if you've never observed it critically!

 

cheers

 

James

[Bernard Lamb]

4 hours ago, foggyjames said:

Thanks Both!

 

 

 

I must admit that even coming into this conversation I had no idea that there was so much to the subject. I suppose that's part of the issue with sectional track (albeit I was only planning to use sectional pointwork!) - it gives you a false impression of the prototype, if you've never observed it critically!

 

cheers

 

James

Once you have got your head round the niceties of the geometry you can then start to consider individual company practice at different dates. Length of track panel, closer spacing of end sleepers in track panels, weight of rail section and as commented on previously the number and type of fixings for a chair. You can study track for a life time and still only scratch the surface. Nearly forgot, there is also ballast to consider. 

Bernard

[hayfield]

5 hours ago, foggyjames said:

Thanks Both!

 

Thanks for the links, Martin. I will ponder some book shopping!

 

Point taken John, and I think the time is fast approaching for me to dive into having a play with Templot-ising my AnyRail plan. My concern is that (rather like with my friend's views on interior design!), I'm slightly struggling to anticipate where the issues are going to come from, and I am concerned about garbage-in, garbage-out. In other words, does Templot encourage prototypical practice, or is it only as good as the (in my case limited and quite likely incorrect!) knowledge you apply to it?

 

I must admit that even coming into this conversation I had no idea that there was so much to the subject. I suppose that's part of the issue with sectional track (albeit I was only planning to use sectional pointwork!) - it gives you a false impression of the prototype, if you've never observed it critically!

 

cheers

 

James

 

James

 

Just think of what you want to achieve, perhaps concentrating on the flow of the track

[foggyjames]

Thanks Bernard. A good point about studying it for a lifetime! It comes back to question I suppose we all have to answer sooner or later, or "how close is close enough?".

 

Thanks John. I think the issue I'm facing is that some of this just isn't intuitive to me. For example, I wouldn't have spotted the reverse curve issue with the Peco turnouts used in a crossover which Martin highlighted to me yesterday.

 

I fully 'get' the benefits of flowing curves and not being restricted to the particular geometry of RTL pointwork, and the curve-straight-curve configurations it is likely to result in. It's a happy coincidence that for my plan (or more to the point my space constraints) I have to introduce a rather unprototypical 'kink' in the formation, which I think would go a long way to masking those limitations...but I have a hunch that Templot will allow me to do a better job, even so. I will look forward to learning how to use it, and seeing what I come up with!

 

cheers

 

James

[Siberian Snooper]

Don't try to do Clapham Junction or Crewe for at least a couple of weeks,  try and get your head around the basics of Templot before you start on last great project. It took me several months before the penny dropped and I started to produce workable track layouts, the learning curve is pretty steep,  but once mastered in even minor way is very addictive.

 

 

 

 

[gordon s]

I would echo those statements, SS. I found Templot hard to get my head round as I’m ‘a dive in and get going‘ person with a short term memory which means manuals and long and detailed explanations pass me by. It must have taken three or four attempts over a year before it finally clicked and now it’s invaluable to the development of ET.

 

There are various short cuts that you can use to get you started, but then it becomes totally addictive. Yes, I can turn out a plan, but I probably use 10-20% of its capabilities and It’s easy to forget the process if you put it down for a few months. It soon comes back, but prepare for looking at the screen and not having a clue what to do...........

[roythebus]

There's not many points at Clapham Junction...lots of through lines but very few points.

 

For me Templot meant being able to build frre-flowing track that looks as good as I want it to look. A few years ago someone visited to buy some secondhand stock. He looked at my layout built to OO/SF with C&L bits and said "this protofour looks really good". He was a bit dumbstruck when I told him it was OO gauge. Says it all really.

 

I'd agree with what Hayfield says, go with the flow, don't worry too much about the details. In my view it's the overall appearance that counts. And of course does it work?

 

 

[Jeff Smith]

Personally I think a lot depends on what compromises you are prepared to accept.  If you have an eye-level layout, BH 16.5 mm track can look pretty good as you can't see the relatively wide check-rail and points gaps.  However, at that angle you can't appreciate flowing track either!

 

It sounds as though you are prepared to build your own track.  P4 is no more difficult to build with the correct gauges and looks and works a whole lot better.  Pannier, Jinty or diesel drop in P4 wheelsets are easy and can get you running in no time.  Now might be the time to seriously consider a change on a small scale if not too committed to OO.

[Bernard Lamb]

12 hours ago, foggyjames said:

Thanks Bernard. A good point about studying it for a lifetime! It comes back to question I suppose we all have to answer sooner or later, or "how close is close enough?".

 

 

My local station is on the London end of the WCML. All the four main lines are very modern and well maintained. However there is a bay platform that has not seen a train for many years. While I used to wait for a London train in pre Covid days I studied the track. Missing bolts on fish plates, chairs from various sources, sleepers at odd spacings. If you built a length like that in model form your workmanship would be laughed at. There were until very recently several stations on the ECML that had sidings of a similar standard.

Bernard

[foggyjames]

Thanks for your further thoughts and encouragement, all!

 

cheers

 

James

[Jeff Smith]

6 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

My local station is on the London end of the WCML. All the four main lines are very modern and well maintained. However there is a bay platform that has not seen a train for many years. While I used to wait for a London train in pre Covid days I studied the track. Missing bolts on fish plates, chairs from various sources, sleepers at odd spacings. If you built a length like that in model form your workmanship would be laughed at. There were until very recently several stations on the ECML that had sidings of a similar standard.

Bernard

Perhaps for parking maintenance vehicles periodically?