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

[Wayne Kinney]

Hi Guys,

 

The height transition piece works perfectly! Here it is joining the EM Gauge B7 'WIP' to thin sleeper EM Gauge SMP plain line...

 

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2020 by Wayne Kinney

[KeithHC]

That looks great and seams to work well. Just as a matter of interest are you going to publish the results of your survey.

 

Keith

[NHY 581]

11 minutes ago, KeithHC said:

That looks great and seams to work well. Just as a matter of interest are you going to publish the results of your survey.

 

Keith

 

Keith,

If you go into the survey on page 12, click on 'results' and then scroll through using the 'next' button  you can view said results. 

 

Rob. 

[Brinkly]

I'm a little bit late to the party... but... isn't this an exciting development! I'm really impressed with your work, Wayne: I can't wait to see the finished products. 

 

All the best,

 

Nick.

[steve45]

IMHO the ballast with thin sleepers looks too neat and uniform, thick sleepers allow for prototypical variations in ballast height allowing some sides of sleepers to be seen. 

[cheesysmith]

A question? How long will it be before the turnouts become available in FB rail?

 

It's just a lot of people will be needing FB turnouts even if they model steam, and even people who model today's railways will be needing BH turnouts as well.

 

Just getting into the idea of building a minories layout using these turnouts. It may not be the small space of the original idea but want to see what the curves look like using these.

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, steve45 said:

IMHO the ballast with thin sleepers looks too neat and uniform

Not when I do it...

[NHY 581]

I would go for a thicker sleeper and would agree that this offers more scope to vary the depth of the ballast. 

 

Here's a work in progress using PECO trackwork. 

 

I would be interested to see how the sleeper bases take paint and weathering powders given the abuse I inflict on them. 

 

 

Rob. 

 

 

[KeithHC]

6 hours ago, NHY 581 said:

I would go for a thicker sleeper and would agree that this offers more scope to vary the depth of the ballast. 

 

Here's a work in progress using PECO trackwork. 

 

I would be interested to see how the sleeper bases take paint and weathering powders given the abuse I inflict on them. 

 

 

Rob. 

 

 

I think we need a master class on how you have achieved the above. That is the look I will be after. I presume the rail head still needs cleaning.

 

Keith

[NHY 581]

2 hours ago, KeithHC said:

I think we need a master class on how you have achieved the above. That is the look I will be after. I presume the rail head still needs cleaning.

 

Keith

 

 

Thanks Keith. 

 

Yes. The last image was prior to cleaning everything up. 

 

Rob. 

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by NHY 581

[Wayne Kinney]

Happy New Year, everybody!

[Jack P]

A little late to this topic, but extremely impressed and excited with the progress so far.

 

@Wayne Kinney i'm holding out for your jan/feb price announcement more-so than any of the RTR boys!

[martin_wynne]

19 minutes ago, Jack P said:

i'm holding out for your jan/feb price announcement more-so than any of the RTR boys!

 

See: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/160234-new-range-of-simple-to-assemble-00em-gauge-pointwork-kits/&do=findComment&comment=4222677

 

 

[Jack P]

2 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

See: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/160234-new-range-of-simple-to-assemble-00em-gauge-pointwork-kits/&do=findComment&comment=4222677

 

Clearly in the haste of my excitement I missed this. Thanks Martin, the price makes these even more appealing.

[PMP]

Re sleeper thickness I’d suggest ‘thick for OO for two reasons.

a/ ease of connecting to other systems, eg Peco B/H and their code 75 streamline range. I can see Finetrax being used front of house, and Streamline in fiddleyards off stage to maximise the opportunities that geometry can give in tight spaces.

b/ Thick sleepers give more options when ballasting and detailing track. I tend to use thick sleepers, but have mixed C&L thin with Peco thick.

Regarding the material, it would be good to know if there are any ‘banned’ substances as far as solvent goes.

I have occasionally used cellulose on track, and also ballast and fix track using superglue. Due to the variety of techniques that modellers who’d use this product develop, a quick ‘no go’ reference would be useful.

 

Cyano track fixing here https://albionyard.net/?s=Superquick+&submit=Search

so as not to divert the thread.

Edited January 1, 2021 by PMP
Add pics

[Edwardian]

On 28/12/2020 at 10:57, Wayne Kinney said:

Thanks Joseph,

 

The reason I ask is due to the different height between some of the plain track available (thick or thin sleeper). 

 

I originally stated that I would be producing the turnout kits in both thick and thin sleeper/timber versions, but think I am creating too many variables and roughly 95% of feedback I've had (before the poll) state they will be using thick sleeper plain track.

 

So I believe I will be producing in thick sleeper only, which would align with Peco bullhead and new C&L Thick Sleeper.

 

Thin sleeper plain line (SMP or the older C&L thin) would need packing up by approx. 0.5mm.

 

 

EDIT: This post pushed into page 13, anyone who has missed it, please answer my polls on previous page (12). Thanks!

 

That is a pity. Compatibility with SMP OO track was what I was after. That is where the gap in the market is (simple and cost effective turnout kits to use with finescale flexitrack).

 

If thick sleepers only, all you are doing is duplicating Peco's expanding BH range. 

 

 

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

If thick sleepers only, all you are doing is duplicating Peco's expanding BH range. 

 

I understand the frustration but I do think that by adopting prototype geometry, Peco's BH point range is not being duplicated but rendered a dead letter.

[Edwardian]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I understand the frustration but I do think that by adopting prototype geometry, Peco's BH point range is not being duplicated but rendered a dead letter.

 

Quite possibly, though that point might be lost on some potential customers.

 

It is not, however, logically a reason not to produce standard OO in thin sleepers, not least because there is a distinct benefit to 'eezi-build' turnouts compatible with finescale flexi-track, which some of us feel the need for. 

 

I would very much regret a decision to neglect the thin sleeper option announced for standard OO. 

[James Harrison]

8 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

If thick sleepers only, all you are doing is duplicating Peco's expanding BH range. 

 

 

At the rate Peco are developing and expanding their range though.... what is it now, three years and counting for slips, crossings and a second size of turnout?  

[martin_wynne]

40 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

That is a pity. Compatibility with SMP OO track was what I was after.

 

Did you not see:

 

 

More info: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/160234-new-range-of-simple-to-assemble-00em-gauge-pointwork-kits/&do=findComment&comment=4250425

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Wayne Kinney]

48 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

That is a pity. Compatibility with SMP OO track was what I was after. That is where the gap in the market is (simple and cost effective turnout kits to use with finescale flexitrack).

 

If thick sleepers only, all you are doing is duplicating Peco's expanding BH range. 

 

 

Don't worry. As martin mentions above, thin sleeper flexi track will be catered for by the height transition sections.

[Jeff Smith]

57 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

That is a pity. Compatibility with SMP OO track was what I was after. That is where the gap in the market is (simple and cost effective turnout kits to use with finescale flexitrack).

 

If thick sleepers only, all you are doing is duplicating Peco's expanding BH range. 

 

 

The sentiment in your post seems a bit harsh.  Peco geometry comes in for much criticism and alternatives with prototype geometry should be encouraged, especially from what seems to be a self funded initiative.  Transition sections are planned but surely it is not too difficult to pack up thin sleepered track to match the height.  My suspicion is that the appearance will be superior to SMP track anyway.

[martin_wynne]

17 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

Transition sections are planned but surely it is not too difficult to pack up thin sleepered track to match the height.

 

Perhaps it hasn't registered from the topic title that these are kits, i.e. intended for modelmakers. Folks who can easily hack and pack, cut and shut, to fit whatever they need.

 

Folks looking for a consumer product -- remove from packet, clip together -- should perhaps be looking at the Peco catalogue instead.

 

Martin.

[Edwardian]

26 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

The sentiment in your post seems a bit harsh.  Peco geometry comes in for much criticism and alternatives with prototype geometry should be encouraged, especially from what seems to be a self funded initiative.  Transition sections are planned but surely it is not too difficult to pack up thin sleepered track to match the height.  My suspicion is that the appearance will be superior to SMP track anyway.

 

Yes, I accept what you say, but the fact that they will be a better geometry than Peco does not mean that the thin sleepered version, the announcement of which so encouraged me, would not have been useful.

 

My point is simply that, with thick sleepered track, at least there is a relatively easy alternative. 

 

Every time you introduce a complexity - need transitional track, need to pack - you dilute the benefit of what was announced.  To my mind, this was the obvious gap in the market and now I am hearing that it will not be filled. Naturally I am disappointed.

 

 

[Edwardian]

3 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Perhaps it hasn't registered from the topic title that these are kits, i.e. intended for modelmakers. Folks who can easily hack and pack, cut and shut, to fit whatever they need.

 

Folks looking for a consumer product -- remove from packet, clip together -- should perhaps be looking at the Peco catalogue instead.

 

Martin.

 

This range seems designed to suit those who may fall between those stools. What was announced made a finescale appearance more accessible.  That seemed to be the great merit of it. Not for you, I suggest, to dismiss all who have not the time/skill/confidence to achieve such an appearance the hard way as only deserving of the appearance of Peco track.

 

As someone who has tried build his own point-work - a deeply stressful, unpleasant and not that successful experience - I thought this was the perfect solution.  I do not see the logic of diluting the benefit of this range by only producing with thick sleepers.