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

[martin_wynne]

Given that Wayne's production capacity and stock-holding must have its limits, perhaps we need another poll:

 

Which would you rather have in the range:

 

B-7 thick-timber turnout and B-8 thick-timber turnout?

 

or

 

B-7 thick-timber turnout and B-7 thin-timber turnout?

 

Martin.

 

[KeithHC]

No matter whether it ends up thick or thin they are on my buying list for 2021. Wayne bring them on as soon as possible. As I said before I am a ham fisted modeller who would love to produce better paintwork this will allow me to do so.

 

Keith

[Robert Shrives]

Having built over a dozen of the N turnouts and adapted others to catch points the 4mm market is well placed for this work - which looks excellent .  Recent work on Irish in 4mm has diverted from the N work but no problem really . My little question - in the 64 million dollar bit  will these be adaptable to a 21 mm gauge version as the issue has been vexxing and angsting - if these are real words!  the happy band of Irish modellers.

Cheers for any reply !

regards and happy new year

Robert    

[martin_wynne]

8 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

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.     

 

But you don't need pointwork building skills to assemble these kits. Just ordinary layout building skills. Anyone who can build a baseboard can surely lay a strip of card under their plain track?

 

Or if not, why use thin SMP Scaleway in the first place? C&L can supply excellent fine-scale 00 flexi-track with thick sleepers, a choice of keying practice, and properly-spaced 60ft panels:

 

© C&L image linked from https://www.clfinescale.co.uk

 

 https://www.clfinescale.co.uk/online-store/OO-FLEXITRACK-CODE-75-BULLHEAD-HI-Ni-NICKLE-SILVER-RAIL-ONE-METER-Branchline-Mainline-Versions-on-options-p228709959

 

And the thick-sleeper Peco bullhead flexi-track is very acceptable. Many fine-scale modellers are now using the Peco bullhead fishplates.

 

Martin.

[SydTrax]

I've been looking to replace all my current Peco track with something more "authentic" for some time. I've always been put off building my own points as I am definitely an "average" modeller and am not confident I'd end up with a useable product. I certainly don't have the wallet to have them hand-built by someone else either.

 

These are exactly what I've been looking for; they look to be within my capabilities and to me look much more like the real thing at a very reasonable price. Looking forward to release day very much!

[Tankerman]

2 hours 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. 

 

 

 

Firstly I have no connection with Wayne other than commenting on this thread and being very pleased that he is planning these point kits which will enable me to have prototypical pointwork on my planned layout.

 

Have you looked at the results of Wayne's trackwork poll on page 12?  The results are as follows :-

To use with:-  Peco bullhead - 63%, C&L thick sleeper - 12%, C&L thin sleeper - 10%, SMP - 10%, Other - 6%

 

That shows that the gap in the market is not compatibility with SMP OO track, but providing prototypical pointwork for use with Peco bullhead and C&L thick sleeper track, since 75% of the respondents stated those flexible tracks as their preferred purchase option.

Edited January 1, 2021 by Tankerman
improving clarity

[LBRJ]

Thick sleepers for me every time

• Its stronger
• It matches with PECO and C&L I have to hand
• Can show lightly ballasted track
• Real sleepers only seem to come in "thick"
• I'm capable of slipping some card shims under the miles of SMP thin that I have kicking about.

[Compound2632]

On 29/12/2020 at 17:57, Wayne Kinney said:

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...

 

The snag is that if you've got a lot of SMP (or thin-sleepered C&L), you're going to end up with a hump in the line at every point.

 

If you've already laid a lot of SMP...

Edited January 1, 2021 by Compound2632

[Jeff Smith]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The snag is that if you've got a lot of SMP (or thin-sleepered C&L), you're going to end up with a hump in the line at every point.

 

If you've already laid a lot of SMP...

So if it is already laid what points are you using?........

[Compound2632]

Just now, Jeff Smith said:

So if it is already laid what points are you using?........

 

For myself, that's a hypothetical question. Knowing what I do of  @Edwardian's progress with his layout, as described in his Castle Aching topic, he's struggled with hand-building pointwork, so he was very keen on the idea of something he could more-or-less drop in. 

[Edwardian]

44 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The snag is that if you've got a lot of SMP (or thin-sleepered C&L), you're going to end up with a hump in the line at every point.

 

If you've already laid a lot of SMP...

 

That applies both to the layout and the test track. Having to relay sections of track either side of every turnout is a lessening of convenient, and, therefore, of appeal.  This would be true to some extent even if I had not made a start. Not the elegant solution I took this to be.  I think that deals with Mr Wynne's point, too. BTW, Marcway I find very easy to deal with.  Availability and long lead times were an issue when I was looking into C&L, and for various other technical reasons that I forget, SMP was favoured. 

 

Two points, then.  First, no one is arguing against a thick sleeper option so far as I am aware.  Rather, I think a thick sleeper option is a very good thing. My preference is for the thin sleeper option to be included as well, which is a big part of why this product appealed to me and seemed like an ideal solution. It is now a possible solution, along with others, none of which are ideal.

 

Second, if the manufacturer is prepared to lose a percentage of potential custom, that's a matter for him, and I am not urging him to do something against his economic interest (assuming an RMWeb snapshot of views is worth the bandwith). I am simply expressing disappointment that the options will not be as first stated because, for reasons that I think are perfectly reasonable, the use of this product would not be particularly simple in the context of current projects, so is not the solution (for me) that the announcement promised. 

 

If starting a new project, I could plan around the incompatibility, though clearly life would be easier and the solution a better one if the sleeper height included an option compatible with SMP track. That is always going to be the case and always something in the balance against this product for me. I am happy with SMP track and have a stock. Happy to keep buying it, too. 

 

As things currently stand, it will not be impossible to use this product for my existing projects, but it would require extra work and re-doing of work and they may literally now be more trouble than they are worth as a solution. 

[Ben Alder]

I work with thin sleepered C&L and up to recently, Peco Code 75 points, and overcame the problem of height compatibility by sinking the points in to the sub base of 5mm camping mat type foam.

 

[SHMD]

As these are 3D printed, would the thin sleeper versions be significantly quicker to print?

 

 

Kev.

(Who is only interested in the thick sleeper varieties.)

 

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

The snag is that if you've got a lot of SMP (or thin-sleepered C&L), you're going to end up with a hump in the line at every point.

 

If you've already laid a lot of SMP...

Edited 1 hour ago by Compound263

 

The solution there would be to cut away the cork underlay under the areas of pointwork, and replace it with something thinner. If using 1/8" cork, maybe 2mm balsa wood would be suitable.

 

Martin.

[LBRJ]

3 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

The solution there would be to cut away the cork underlay under the areas of pointwork, and replace it with something thinner. If using 1/8" cork, maybe 2mm balsa wood would be suitable.

 

Martin.

 

Do we need to hark back to times of  such creative solutions in a hobby where everything is now given on a plate?

[PMP]

If the initial core market has indicated a preference for thick sleepers then it’s absolutely logical for Finetrax to accommodate that market first. As has been mentioned there are easy workarounds for this difference between thin/thick sleeper heights, the simplest being shimming the low track with paper or card to match rail height. If you’re using a flexible underlay you might not even need to do that.  I didn’t joining C&L thin to standard Peco streamline pointwork.

Using superglue and Woodland Scenics foam, the types naturally balanced out. There’s no curb drop off at the joints.

This system isn’t anything like a dead letter to Peco’s track, the two types look like they’re compatible, many Peco users won’t want to build kit pointwork,  and Peco have a wider distribution network. The Finetrax N system is excellent, but it’s been no ‘dead letter’ to Peco’s regular ranges.

Edited January 1, 2021 by PMP

[Enterprisingwestern]

8 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

That applies both to the layout and the test track. Having to relay sections of track either side of every turnout is a lessening of convenient, and, therefore, of appeal.  This would be true to some extent even if I had not made a start. Not the elegant solution I took this to be.  I think that deals with Mr Wynne's point, too. BTW, Marcway I find very easy to deal with.  Availability and long lead times were an issue when I was looking into C&L, and for various other technical reasons that I forget, SMP was favoured. 

 

Two points, then.  First, no one is arguing against a thick sleeper option so far as I am aware.  Rather, I think a thick sleeper option is a very good thing. My preference is for the thin sleeper option to be included as well, which is a big part of why this product appealed to me and seemed like an ideal solution. It is now a possible solution, along with others, none of which are ideal.

 

Second, if the manufacturer is prepared to lose a percentage of potential custom, that's a matter for him, and I am not urging him to do something against his economic interest (assuming an RMWeb snapshot of views is worth the bandwith). I am simply expressing disappointment that the options will not be as first stated because, for reasons that I think are perfectly reasonable, the use of this product would not be particularly simple in the context of current projects, so is not the solution (for me) that the announcement promised. 

 

If starting a new project, I could plan around the incompatibility, though clearly life would be easier and the solution a better one if the sleeper height included an option compatible with SMP track. That is always going to be the case and always something in the balance against this product for me. I am happy with SMP track and have a stock. Happy to keep buying it, too. 

 

As things currently stand, it will not be impossible to use this product for my existing projects, but it would require extra work and re-doing of work and they may literally now be more trouble than they are worth as a solution. 

 

With the best will in the world, manufacturers aren't going to get a coconut with every ball, modellers like yourself have solved their problem by other means, so theoretically, at the moment, this range isn't for you, but who knows what might turn up in the future.

Currently Wayne is doing his market research and providing what he feels is the most popular product which will sell to most people, a common sense approach IMHO.

AS LBRJ said, we're trying not to go backwards in the hobby.

 

Mike.

[Compound2632]

41 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

AS LBRJ said, we're trying not to go backwards in the hobby.

 

Who is the "we" in that sentence?

[Enterprisingwestern]

22 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Who is the "we" in that sentence?

 

Hopefully, all modellers.

 

Mike.

[hayfield]

14 hours ago, Wayne Kinney said:

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

 

For several years now the market has been moving away from thin based plain track. true that SMP still supplies thin based flexi track, but I doubt if much is sold now, C&L have abandoned thin sleeper flexitrack, Exactoscale never ever made any Peco abandoned thin track bases in the 60's.

 

The simple reason is it is thin bases are very unstable when pinned on top of a flexible track base. If buying flexitrack now there are far better quality and detailed options available and the thicker bases match RTR turnouts and crossings.

 

In fact what did the thin track bases of both SMP or C&L match? certainly not RTR turnouts or crossings, neither 1 mm or 1.6 mm copperclad strip (it fell between the two). I have been told C&L thin sleepers and timbers were to match Ply and rivet track, but this method was mainly used by P4 & EM gauge modellers. For the 00 gauge modeller there has always been a compromise, now a standard size is becoming the norm.

 

As said Wayne has actually come up with the first bespoke conversion piece, this will allow a controlled transition from both SMP & C&L thin based track.  

 

 

[Edwardian]

It seems that we cannot just accept that, for use with thin sleepered plain track, thin sleepered turnouts are best and would, therefore, have been better and that their absence is to some degree to be regretted.  The idea that thin-sleepered finescale flexi-track has somehow and at some point become the betamax to a VHS thick-sleepered version seems particularly absurd; both the SMP and C&L ranges appear to have been stable and unchanging alternatives for years. I am, though, impressed by the persistence and ingenuity employed to convince potential customers that it is they who do not fit this product, not that the product does not now fit their needs.  

 

The point is not that there are not work-arounds (though advice such as "one can simply do x, y or z" seldom turns out to be that simple, and, of course, does not amend the fact that a faff-factor that ideally need not be there has been introduced to the process; the more stages that you introduce to something like track-laying that can go wrong, the more things will go wrong in the hands of folk such as me!). If the intended virtue of the product is its 'eezi-build' quality, you detract from it by requiring additional 'ground works' from a substantial minority of potential customers.  

 

The point is neither that Wayne is being in any way criticised for any commercially necessary decision he feels he must make (though forgive me if I am sceptical about taking the opinions canvassed on RMWeb as comprehensive or reliable "market research", or that those who claim to speak for all modellers or for the hobby voice opinions of especial weight). Though I remain of the view that there is an obvious and logical virtue to a product that can supplement SMP track, as there is to one that can supplement C&L thick sleeper or Peco track (where, at least, there is an alternative, albeit not an equivalent). I think the case that thin sleepered turnouts would not sell is hardly made definitively here. SMP track still sells. 

 

No, I was merely explaining why, for me, as a user of SMP plain track, one of the cardinal virtues of the announced product has fallen away and that the product now appears much less useful, and certainly no longer as "eezi" as it was intended to be.  Inevitably I will be less likely to employ it.

 

If people want to persist in arguing that I am wrong to conclude that in the context of my own circumstances, they can feel free, and I will feel free to re-state my conclusion.  Or, you could just accept the point that, for some of us, the change in specification to exclude a thin sleeper option for OO is a retrograde step that makes the product much less relevant to our needs. 

 

If the manufacturer feels he must go that way, then, fair play, but I regret it nonetheless.

[Wayne Kinney]

Wow, many replies since yesterday!

 

I appreciate any disappointment 'Edwardian' or others like him may have. Although its physically possible to create thin sleeper versions, the issue is indeed the shear number of variations needed to keep in stock.

 

Let's start with the first kit, a B7 turnout. As I am catering for 00 Gauge, 00-SF and EM Gauge, that's three variants to stock already. Left and right hand? Ah, make that 6 variants.

 

Add a thin sleeper/timber version, I've now doubled that to 12 variants just for a B7 kit.

 

Now, how many kits should I get ready and stocked before releasing...you start to understand the shear numbers needed with all these variants. Not to mention the CAD work involved for each of these versions.

 

I've also been approached by the 3mm Scale and Protofour Scale Societies, which I am very thankful for, but will add another 4 variations for a B7..LOL

 

I am to blame though, as I did of course say in an earlier post that I would offer thin sleeper. But this project is still developing, and so are production decisions, I'm afraid. Sorry for any disappointment.

 

I have offered a transition piece as a solution to those that wish to use thin sleeper plain line. Although I am sure that the majority of modellers wanting to dip their toe into finescale track will most likely be choosing thick sleeper flexi track, most likely Peco Bullhead.

 

I sympathise with your situation, but I do see the fact that you have already laid thin sleeper track as I minority situation, and one where solutions are available.

 

 

Edited January 2, 2021 by Wayne Kinney

[hayfield]

Edwardian

 

Certainly I was not criticising your own choice, you can do what ever you want, thin track bases do have benefits, but when the faults of the system outweigh the benefits, and certainly for a commercial enterprise when the cost of running 2 systems in parallel is just not justified, then you must look at which method is better in quality and more importantly sells more

 

Its certainly not true that the thin sleeper tracks have been trouble free for years, as I said if pinning the thin track base to baseboards especially on a soft track bed, the track base easily deforms. Fact !!  Thin timbers react with solvent and deform over time, the work around of this issue was to either use a thicker timber, or a solid track base where the sleepers can be bonded to

 

The reason C&L took so long to change was the cost of a new tool

The reason Exactoscale never offered a thin track base was that a thicker was far more stable

When the C&L 00 gauge moulding tool needed replacing, thick base was the obvious choice for all the previous reasons

 

Back to Wayne, I was not defending him, but his choice, which must be led by consumer interest/feedback, these businesses are run on a shoe string, difficult decisions have to be made. The simple fact is in 00 gauge there are two offerings 00 & 00SF, then at the same time offering an EM gauge product. Very brave step

Edited January 2, 2021 by hayfield

[Robert Shrives]

19 minutes ago, Wayne Kinney said:

Wow, many replies since yesterday!

 

I appreciate any disappointment 'Edwardian' or others like him may have. Although its physically possible to create thin sleeper versions, the issue is indeed the share number of variations needed to keep in stock.

 

Let's start with the first kit, a B7 turnout. As I am catering for 00 Gauge, 00-SF and EM Gauge, that's three variants to stock already. Left and right hand? Ah, make that 6 variants.

 

Add a thin sleeper/timber version, I've now doubled that to 12 variants just for a B7 kit.

 

Now, how many kits should I get ready and stocked before releasing...you start to understand the share numbers needed with all these variants. Not to mention the CAD work involved for each of these versions.

 

I've also been approached by the 3mm Scale and Protofour Scale Societies, which I am very thankful for, but will add another 4 variations for a B7..LOL

 

I am to blame though, as I did of course say in an earlier post that I would offer thin sleeper. But this project is still developing, and so are production decisions, I'm afraid. Sorry for any disappointment.

 

I have offered a transition piece as a solution to those that wish to use thin sleeper plain line. Although I am sure that the majority of modellers wanting to dip their toe into finescale track will most likely be choosing thick sleeper flexi track, most likely Peco Bullhead.

 

I sympathise with your situation, but I do see the fact that you have already laid thin sleeper track as I minority situation, and one where solutions are available.

 

 

And add in a 21mm version - your store keeper will be a good asset to keep on side!  - Should mould bases in differing colours/ tone to help packing dept (you!) 

Thanks for all this work -so much behind scenes unsen just to make a fortune ...

Robert 

[Michael Hodgson]

'scuse my ignorance but what is wrong with thick sleepers that can't be concealed by laying a slightly deeper layer of ballast?