Using the easy-assembly Finetrax pointwork kits in 00 and EM (and in P4 from the S4 Society)

[martin_wynne]

8 hours ago, NHY 581 said:

My apologies but I like to keep things simple.  I'm starting to find the ongoing references to  16.2 etc a tad off putting to what initially seemed to be quite a straight forward product to the novice (Me) track builder. 

 

I'm interested from the point of view that at face value at least this was a case of minimal assembly producing finer looking trackwork for 'off the shelf ' RTR 00 products. Therefore I was looking at the 00 gauge 'Standard' point to use in conjuction with PECO Bullhead set track.

 

Hi Rob,

I'm sorry this topic, essentially about a new product launch, has got tangled up with the usual 00-SF ramifications and discussions.

 

Wayne hasn't finally decided if or how his product will support alternative versions of 00 in addition to standard 00, so it might be better if the discussions about it were done in a separate topic.

 

If your only interest is to run RTR models out of the box, it's probably best to stick with the standard 00 product and ignore posts about 00-SF. You can regard it as a variant of EM.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[KeithHC]

All I have to say is let us all support Wayne. This is a significant development that has been built on the experience of n gauge. I am looking forward to trying out a kit as soon as possible. I like Joseph have the same quandary do I go to EM or stick to 00 in either form. Wayne carry on you are doing a fantastic job. I get the impression you are starting with 00 and EM with00sf to follow.

[hayfield]

I do find it refreshing that a manufacturer is rightly considering what modellers require, firstly making something many want which is a realistic range of 4mm scale turnouts and crossings, then servicing the requirements of 2 niche markets namely EM and 00SF gauges. Supplying one of these areas is quite a commitment let alone 3. To be applauded. I would not complicate things transitioning from one gauge to another, as its so easy to do this yourself and allows the modeller to join 2 or more turnouts together.

 

 

[NHY 581]

1 hour ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Rob,

I'm sorry this topic, essentially about a new product launch, has got tangled up with the usual 00-SF ramifications and discussions.

 

If your only interest is to run RTR models out of the box, it's probably best to stick with the standard 00 product and ignore posts about 00-SF. You can regard it as a variant of EM.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Thanks Martyn. 

 

Yes, that is my only interest so posts referring to the SF side of 00 can be a bit confusing. 

 

Waynes response clarified matters but happy to filer accordingly. 

 

Rob. 

[martin_wynne]

One of the reasons folks turn to hand-built track is to replicate the flow of curves through prototype pointwork, and to better fit their model trackplan to the available space. I haven't handled the new Finetrax bases, but it seems that by snipping away some of the base webs, it would be quite easy to assemble the kits on a curve.

 

When I saw these new Finetrax cast V-crossings:

 

 

I was struck not only by their accuracy and realism, but also by the possibilities they create. By keeping them to the very minimum length necessary for the polarity switching, Wayne has created components which can be used in almost the same way as prototype crossings.

 

Prototype bolted crossings are normally made "straight over straight" within the bolted section, and are "faired" into a ruling curve with a big hammer. Some curving of the bolted section is possible by slackening the bolts, and re-tightening after curving, but not much.

 

Prototype curves are much gentler than most model curves, so the error introduced by having a short length of bolted straight in the curve is not much. Any roughness is soon worn off under traffic, and this is one of the reasons for a speed restriction for a few days after new track has been laid.

 

This is a B-7 curved crossover in EM:

 

 

Such a crossover can't be constructed use Peco curved turnouts, or any other ready-made pointwork. That's because both of these turnouts are the same hand, left-hand here. That's the only way the two running lines can be concentric (parallel), and on the prototype they would not require a speed restriction along them.

 

Normally you wouldn't use B-7 for a curved crossover, a longer turnout such as a C-10 would be preferable. But sometimes on a model needs must, and a short curved crossover is the only option which will fit. Here by allowing the inner radius to go down to 840mm/33", I was able to get the radius in the running line down to 1980mm/78".

 

This is what would happen with the Finetrax kit:

 

 

The blue lines show where the rail edges should be if curved through the crossing, and the yellow lines show the effect of a dead-straight Finetrax V-crossing superimposed over them. You can see that the error is very small:

 

 

Measuring with the ruler tool in Templot, it's about 0.06mm, or a couple of thou. That's within the typical construction limits for 00 and EM handbuilt track (but might be a worry in P4). Model trains won't wear that off any time soon, but if necessary we could fettle the crossing with a needle file or abrasive paper instead. Very likely no fettling would be needed, but it would be worth rounding over the nose of the vee in any event for the best running when building these kits.

 

What this long ramble is trying to say, is that those who have admired layouts having smooth flowing pointwork, but have felt that they lacked the skills to build it themselves, may well find that these new kits come to the rescue, and can be built into curves almost as easily as dead straight.

 

A couple of questions for Wayne:

 

1. Would it be possible to run a thin web between the timbers along the centre-line of the main road? It can be quite thin and easily lost under ballast, and doesn't need to be very strong if the existing webs are already sufficient. The reason for asking is that by snipping away the main webs, it would be possible to curve the base so that it exactly matches a Templot curved turnout template. Sticking the base to the template would replace any strength lost in removing the main webs.

 

2. Will you be making the K-crossings similarly short? Even though there is no need for polarity switching. I hope so, to allow them to be used in curved diamonds and slips in a similar manner to the V-crossings above.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Jeff Smith]

Having a thin (ie less than the sleeper depth) web along the centre line in plain flexitrack has been suggested before but with no webbing under the rails.  It would be much easier to bend the track and the sleepers would remain equi-spaced.....

[Gilbert]

6 hours ago, NHY 581 said:

 

Thanks Martyn. 

 

Yes, that is my only interest so posts referring to the SF side of 00 can be a bit confusing. 

 

Waynes response clarified matters but happy to filer accordingly. 

 

Rob. 

I too would like to move on with my RTR stock so will be happy to build a kit that looks good compared with proprietary products. I do have some Peco BH turnouts so will wait for the shorter (?A6)points when available. Not keen on Unifrog because of a few locos that have proved impossible to re-wheel so live frog will do me..

Chris

[Nickey Line]

9 hours ago, hayfield said:

I would not complicate things transitioning from one gauge to another, as its so easy to do this yourself and allows the modeller to join 2 or more turnouts together.

 

A further point to consider... the 'dual-gauge' solution, were it adopted, would prevent those wishing to build their own plain track to 16.2mm from using these kits, whereas the single-gauge solution would enable both camps to use them.

 

I should add that these products are mightily impressive...!

Edited December 9, 2020 by Nickey Line
Postscript added...

[polybear]

54 minutes ago, Nickey Line said:

 

A further point to consider... the 'dual-gauge' solution, were it adopted, would prevent those wishing to build their own plain track to 16.2mm from using these kits, whereas the single-gauge solution would enable both camps to use them.

 

I should add that these products are mightily impressive...!

 

Unless the 16.2mm plain trackwork is flared outwards to 16.5mm, so the turnout can then flare it inwards to 16.2mm........

No, that wouldn't make sense....

[RichardT]

On 08/12/2020 at 20:37, martin_wynne said:

 

For a small reduction in the gauge, which no-one can see, you get a big improvement in the flangeway gap, which everyone can see, and a big improvement in the running quality of kit wheels.

 

16.5mm is a dimension with no prototype significance at 4mm/ft scale, so it might just as well be 16.2mm.

 

Martin.

Ah, I see.  Thanks for the explanation Martin.  This whole 00-SF has obviously passed me by completely.

 

Regards, Richard T

[RichardT]

On 08/12/2020 at 20:55, Wayne Kinney said:

We will see 

Ha, ha! Serves me right for asking whilst you’re up to your eyes in 4mm developments.

Best wishes,

RT

[cheesysmith]

The estimated price, wow. You will be receiving orders from me when they do become available, I'll just wait for the launch rush to die down first lol. 

 

As for the 00SF bit, keeping the smaller throughout the kit and having some sleepers to gain the extra 0.3 mm sold as a extra sounds like a better idea. This would keep the better running through multi point layouts.

[martin_wynne]

48 minutes ago, RichardT said:

This whole 00-SF has obviously passed me by completely.

 

That's the problem. Every time it's mentioned it has to be explained all over again -- to someone who starts off making a negative comment about it.

 

The result is a constant air of contention around it, when in fact there is none, it's just like anything else. Some folks like it and adopt it. Others don't.

 

This has been going on for 15 years now, and every single RMweb track topic gets waylaid by the subject, just as this has now. You can find out more at https://00-sf.org.uk

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

That's the problem. Every time it's mentioned it has to be explained all over again -- to someone who starts off making a negative comment about it.

 

The result is a constant air of contention around it, when in fact there is none, it's just like anything else. Some folks like it and adopt it. Others don't.

 

This has been going on for 15 years now, and every single RMweb track topic gets waylaid by the subject, just as this has now. You can find out more at https://00-sf.org.uk

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

At least you-know-who hasn't popped up here (yet?)...

[KeithHC]

I must admit I am being drawn to 00sf. I would like to see the use of a converter section for flexible track as the solution. May be a pack of 10 converter strips as a bulk buy with them also being available singularly as well. This would allow I believe turnouts to be placed back to back so that crossovers could be built. Are you also planning catch points? I presume that you would not be producing plain track as that is alread well established.

 

BTW any further photos of your developments for us all to pour over.

 

Keith (excited of Dursley) 

[Wayne Kinney]

15 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

One of the reasons folks turn to hand-built track is to replicate the flow of curves through prototype pointwork, and to better fit their model trackplan to the available space. I haven't handled the new Finetrax bases, but it seems that by snipping away some of the base webs, it would be quite easy to assemble the kits on a curve.

 

When I saw these new Finetrax cast V-crossings:

 

 

I was struck not only by their accuracy and realism, but also by the possibilities they create. By keeping them to the very minimum length necessary for the polarity switching, Wayne has created components which can be used in almost the same way as prototype crossings.

 

Prototype bolted crossings are normally made "straight over straight" within the bolted section, and are "faired" into a ruling curve with a big hammer. Some curving of the bolted section is possible by slackening the bolts, and re-tightening after curving, but not much.

 

Prototype curves are much gentler than most model curves, so the error introduced by having a short length of bolted straight in the curve is not much. Any roughness is soon worn off under traffic, and this is one of the reasons for a speed restriction for a few days after new track has been laid.

 

This is a B-7 curved crossover in EM:

 

 

Such a crossover can't be constructed use Peco curved turnouts, or any other ready-made pointwork. That's because both of these turnouts are the same hand, left-hand here. That's the only way the two running lines can be concentric (parallel), and on the prototype they would not require a speed restriction along them.

 

Normally you wouldn't use B-7 for a curved crossover, a longer turnout such as a C-10 would be preferable. But sometimes on a model needs must, and a short curved crossover is the only option which will fit. Here by allowing the inner radius to go down to 840mm/33", I was able to get the radius in the running line down to 1980mm/78".

 

This is what would happen with the Finetrax kit:

 

 

The blue lines show where the rail edges should be if curved through the crossing, and the yellow lines show the effect of a dead-straight Finetrax V-crossing superimposed over them. You can see that the error is very small:

 

 

Measuring with the ruler tool in Templot, it's about 0.06mm, or a couple of thou. That's within the typical construction limits for 00 and EM handbuilt track (but might be a worry in P4). Model trains won't wear that off any time soon, but if necessary we could fettle the crossing with a needle file or abrasive paper instead. Very likely no fettling would be needed, but it would be worth rounding over the nose of the vee in any event for the best running when building these kits.

 

What this long ramble is trying to say, is that those who have admired layouts having smooth flowing pointwork, but have felt that they lacked the skills to build it themselves, may well find that these new kits come to the rescue, and can be built into curves almost as easily as dead straight.

 

A couple of questions for Wayne:

 

1. Would it be possible to run a thin web between the timbers along the centre-line of the main road? It can be quite thin and easily lost under ballast, and doesn't need to be very strong if the existing webs are already sufficient. The reason for asking is that by snipping away the main webs, it would be possible to curve the base so that it exactly matches a Templot curved turnout template. Sticking the base to the template would replace any strength lost in removing the main webs.

 

2. Will you be making the K-crossings similarly short? Even though there is no need for polarity switching. I hope so, to allow them to be used in curved diamonds and slips in a similar manner to the V-crossings above.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Thanks Martin,

 

I am glad you have mentioned this, it's a big feature of the kits, many of my N Gauge customers have done just this with their kits. Obviously the base would need to be fixed down in the curve before cutting rail to length.

 

I'll get an example or two built up and show the result on here once ready

[RichardT]

13 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

That's the problem. Every time it's mentioned it has to be explained all over again -- to someone who starts off making a negative comment about it.

Oh, in that case I’m very sorry.  Thanks again for the calm

response Martin, in the face of what’s obviously repeated provocation!

 

RT

Edited December 10, 2020 by RichardT
To make sense....

[Siberian Snooper]

7 hours ago, KeithHC said:

I must admit I am being drawn to 00sf. I would like to see the use of a converter section for flexible track as the solution. May be a pack of 10 converter strips as a bulk buy with them also being available singularly as well. This would allow I believe turnouts to be placed back to back so that crossovers could be built. Are you also planning catch points? I presume that you would not be producing plain track as that is alread well established.

 

BTW any further photos of your developments for us all to pour over.

 

Keith (excited of Dursley) 

 

I would suggest that the multipack idea is a good one as a single turnout will need three and multiple turnouts are likely to need at least one more, depending on the configuration.

 

 

[Siberian Snooper]

13 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

At least you-know-who hasn't popped up here (yet?)...

 

Wasn't he put on moderation, so he's either keeping quiet or  may have been shown a card, either yellow or red!

 

 

[Tomsontour]

Wishing you all the success with this one Wayne, putting another order in after Christmas for my n gauge track for my scenic section

[YesTor]

Hi Wayne

 

Firstly, best wishes and good luck with this project.  Being in the midst of track planning myself and very much contemplating the 00-SF route I can only say that this is a most welcome product line. 

 

One point I would like to highlight, and if I can quote Mr Wynne here:

 

On 09/12/2020 at 18:07, martin_wynne said:

One of the reasons folks turn to hand-built track is to replicate the flow of curves through prototype pointwork, and to better fit their model trackplan to the available space. I haven't handled the new Finetrax bases, but it seems that by snipping away some of the base webs, it would be quite easy to assemble the kits on a curve.

 

in that the above would be an absolute essential aspect for me.  My reason for even exploring point kits in the first instance is to have something that is very much adaptable to the user's individual track plan, and indeed to replicate those "flowing curves of prototypical pointwork".  Hopefully this is something that you will consider in your designs?

 

I very much look forward to any further developments with regard to 00-SF.

 

Best

Al 

 

[Wayne Kinney]

6 hours ago, YesTor said:

Hi Wayne

 

Firstly, best wishes and good luck with this project.  Being in the midst of track planning myself and very much contemplating the 00-SF route I can only say that this is a most welcome product line. 

 

One point I would like to highlight, and if I can quote Mr Wynne here:

 

 

in that the above would be an absolute essential aspect for me.  My reason for even exploring point kits in the first instance is to have something that is very much adaptable to the user's individual track plan, and indeed to replicate those "flowing curves of prototypical pointwork".  Hopefully this is something that you will consider in your designs?

 

I very much look forward to any further developments with regard to 00-SF.

 

Best

Al 

 

  

22 hours ago, Wayne Kinney said:

Thanks Martin,

 

I am glad you have mentioned this, it's a big feature of the kits, many of my N Gauge customers have done just this with their kits. Obviously the base would need to be fixed down in the curve before cutting rail to length.

 

I'll get an example or two built up and show the result on here once ready

 

[KeithHC]

Wayne has gone quiet wonder what he is up to. Looking forward to some more photos to keep us tempted. Roll on 2021.

 

Keith

[njee20]

Give the man a chance, his was the last post on the thread, barely 48 hours ago!

[Compound2632]

On 08/12/2020 at 20:30, RichardT said:

(also to allow me a breather to get my head round the concept that to be "more finescale" in 00 means making the track gauge even more underscale than it already is...)

 

On 08/12/2020 at 20:37, martin_wynne said:

For a small reduction in the gauge, which no-one can see, you get a big improvement in the flangeway gap, which everyone can see, and a big improvement in the running quality of kit wheels.

 

16.5mm is a dimension with no prototype significance at 4mm/ft scale, so it might just as well be 16.2mm.

 

It's done in 0 gauge, with some finescalers narrowing the gauge to 31 mm, while others widening it to 33 mm (S7). The 32 mm "standard" 0 gauge is after all only a metric approximation to 1¼".

 

19 minutes ago, KeithHC said:

Wayne has gone quiet wonder what he is up to. 

 

I wouldn't blame him for taking time off from all the advice he's been getting.

 

There was a comment recently by @t-b-g, I think on the Wright Writes topic, to the effect that Peter Denny's EM gauge was (is) rather elastic, with widening and narrowing as required to get good running. Though he did say that he has to stick to the WTT to avoid certain items of stock trying to go where they will not pass.