fiNetrax

[Wayne Kinney]

I still believe its best to keep the base colour the same.

[RobboPetes]

This is a really intereting development - something that is long overdue.

 

I was put off N gauge back in the late 70s because of the crude nature of the track and the hidious gap between the rail and the switch rail of the points. The sleeper spacing is another problem I find hard to accept. I joined the 2mm Scale Association and the N gauge society at the same time in the late 80s as I wanted to take advantage of this scale over the larger scales. When PECO brought out the code 55 track I was impressed, although the track system is still let down by the previously-mentioned problems. I am currently looking at building my proposed layout using both Easitrak and soldered track in 2mm scale.

 

I can see this track being a big seller as I believe a lot of modellers are not happy with the current range from PECO. I, too, will be looking at this system once the points come on stream.

 

Keep up the great work you have done so far. You never know, you might actually make PECO wake from their slumber and create a competitive rail system that us N gaugers have been wanting for some time.

[Vanders]

You never know, you might actually make PECO wake from their slumber and create a competitive rail system that us N gaugers have been wanting for some time.

I personally think that fiNetrax is that competitive rail system that us N gauger have been wanting for some time! The prices are comparable to and competitive with the current Peco range and the finished item looks a lot better.

[Guest Natalie Graham]

So is this layout going to be like the old movie sets with the train standing still while the scenery goes by on the screen behind it? Just need to be careful to keep the ballast out of the keyboard.

 

That track is looking really good. Just what N gauge has needed for the last 50 or so years.

[RBE]

I must say this system looks very good. I will need a fair bit of concrete FB for my upcoming project so will need to use the easitrac for the majority of plain track however I do wonder if I could use Waynes points rather than building them myself on copperclad. I know his are BH but will the difference be so noticeable at this scale? Out of interest is the point above a B6? I may be able to tweak my plan to use ifiNetrax points universally on the scenic side. Do we have any firm dates as to when the first points will be available to buy? What is the chance of being able to purchase the cast frogs as a seperate item? They would make building your own track a lot easier.

 

Cav

[Revolution Mike]

I must say this system looks very good. I will need a fair bit of concrete FB for my upcoming project so will need to use the easitrac for the majority of plain track however I do wonder if I could use Waynes points rather than building them myself on copperclad. I know his are BH but will the difference be so noticeable at this scale? Out of interest is the point above a B6? I may be able to tweak my plan to use ifiNetrax points universally on the scenic side. Do we have any firm dates as to when the first points will be available to buy? What is the chance of being able to purchase the cast frogs as a seperate item? They would make building your own track a lot easier.

 

Cav

 

Hi Cav

 

If I ever get round to building something WCML based (depends on me having a bigger place to live!) then I would definitely use Easitrac concrete FB.  Personally I think the difference between FB and BH points is still pretty obvious in 2mm so having made the plain track better it seems a shame not to go the whole hog and get the points right.

 

Cheers, Mike

[RBE]

I see your point, pardon the pun, it was just a thought really, I'm not at all scared to build my own stuff but Waynes points really look the biz. Can we have some 9mm gauge FB concrete track and FB points as well please Wayne?

 

Cav

[Chris Higgs]

I see your point, pardon the pun, it was just a thought really, I'm not at all scared to build my own stuff but Waynes points really look the biz. Can we have some 9mm gauge FB concrete track and FB points as well please Wayne?

 

Cav

 

This topic comes out frequently about FB points. When we did Easitrac we did the concrete plain track with the "chairs" or whatever you want to call them when they are supposed to represent rail clips as small as we dared, and even then they are still way overscale. And they only work because they are moulded onto the sleepers. The idea that they could be done as separate items for points (with or without locating pins) does not seem to me to be feasible. When/if I ever build my planned layout, I intend to just do the FB points as rail soldered onto PCB sleepers.

 

Cast FB frogs would be nice though.

 

Incidentally on the prorotype plain track in FB came before the points, which remained BH for longer, so for a certain era at least, FB track with BH points is a valid combination. Even after that, the sleepers for points remained in wood.

 

Chris

Edited February 22, 2013 by Chris Higgs

[Armchair Modeller]

Having built a few FB turnouts in the past, I would agree that soldered construction is a good, sound option for 2mm scale FB pointwork.

 

In the 1960s and onwards the overall appearance changed quite dramatically over time - even the bullhead ones. The change from straight to curved cut blades alone makes a subtle but noticeable difference. As FB pointwork developed, a huge variety of changes took place. They look nothing like old bullhead turnouts now, even from a distance.

 

For Wayne to do a "standard" FB turnout just wouldn't reflect much at all of the immense variety out there. Far better to get hold of some accurate templates of the real thing and make your own, if you feel confident about it.

 

DEMU and Colin Craig supply templates.

[Wayne Kinney]

Thanks guys,

 

I would say another couple of months and hopefully there.

 

I doubt I will do flat bottom, apart from the technical issues 'red death' pointed out, I would rather invest money into tooling for a 4mm version of the turnout kits.

 

Pre cast frogs will be available separately along with other components (rail etc).

[Wayne Kinney]

Does anyone know where/how I could get rail joiners/fish plates manufactured to fit the code 40 bullhead rail?
 

[Kris]

I'm not aware of any that size except for the cosmetic fishplates done by the 2mm soc (1-092).

[Joseph_Pestell]

Does anyone know where/how I could get rail joiners/fish plates manufactured to fit the code 40 bullhead rail?

 

 

I assume that you have tried ones designed for Code 40FB??? I'm not that sure that appearance would be acceptable anyway.

 

Instead of the conventional solution for rail joiners on model railways (I prefer to call them rail joiners because they look nothing like fishplates on real track), would it work to etch an elongated H-shaped piece with the etch thickness same as the concave bit of the BH rail? Brass would probably be too soft given the small piece which would result. But it might be strong enough in stainless steel.

[RBE]

Etching an H that was as thin as the difference between the rail top and web of the rail would have no benefit as the material would be so thin that even in SS would have very little strength. I think when sizes get this small you either accept non prototypical rail joiners or simply align the tracks as most 2mmers do at present.

 

Cav

[Joseph_Pestell]

Etching an H that was as thin as the difference between the rail top and web of the rail would have no benefit as the material would be so thin that even in SS would have very little strength. I think when sizes get this small you either accept non prototypical rail joiners or simply align the tracks as most 2mmers do at present.

 

Cav

 

It does not need masses of strength. It's only holding the rails in alignment over a very short distance. If of the right dimensions to give a snug fit, it should work well. My concern would be that you can't, in principle, etch narrower than the thickness of the material. Cutting them off the etch could be tricky too. Not a job to do in a carpeted room!

 

I'm tempted to have a go at this experimentally by asking an etched kit producer to put a few in a spare corner of an etch.

 

An alternative, which perhaps plays more to Wayne's strengths, is a specially moulded/routed piece of sleepering with sleepers at closer intervals (as per the prototype at track joints) and a little pip of plastic to keep rail ends apart. We are not bothered about conductivity here as people will want droppers from each section of rail anyway.

[RBE]

The plastic sleeper joiners sound to have more legs to be honest. Etched kit producers would be reluctant to add extra bits to the edge of their kits as the artwork tends to be stored for later re-etching and negates set up costs the next time around. However I will need to have some etches done for producing the viaducts on millers dale which I will be drawing up myself and I may add some joiners on to the edge of those to play with. Be a while before I get to that stage though I think.

 

Cav

Edited February 28, 2013 by RBE

[Joseph_Pestell]

The plastic sleeper joiners sound to have more legs to be honest. Etched kit producers would be reluctant to add extra bits to the edge of their kits as the artwork tends to be stored for later re-etching and negates set up costs the next time around. However I will need to have some etches done for producing the viaducts on millers dale which I will be drawing up myself and I may add some joiners on to the edge of those to play with. Be a while before I get to that stage though I think.

 

Cav

 

I used to work with an etched kit producer, so I know the score there. I'm only thinking of putting a couple in the corner of an etch on the frame surround. The purchasers of the kits won't ever see it and so it can stay on the artwork.

 

If it works, it would of course be supplied via new artwork and a complete sheet. That would be split up into sub-sheets of course. I dread to think how many such joiners one would get on a 450mm x 300mm sheet.

[RBE]

Haha yeah I think a sheet of those would be the last one you'd ever buy!

 

Cav

[Kris]

Any updates on the point work and crossings?

[Roy L S]

An alternative, which perhaps plays more to Wayne's strengths, is a specially moulded/routed piece of sleepering with sleepers at closer intervals (as per the prototype at track joints) and a little pip of plastic to keep rail ends apart. We are not bothered about conductivity here as people will want droppers from each section of rail anyway.

Not sure I agree with that assumption.

 

I have tried Wayne's product and it is excellent but I would be put off using it for larger projects if I had to put a wire droppers on each rail end every 0.5m and drill holes through the baseboard for them.

 

I believe Finetrax could be a very credible alternative to Peco, there is no comparison looks wise, but in my humble opinion for it to have the best chance of appealing to the wider N market it would need to be as easy to use/install as possible and for me that means rail joiners conducting the power rather than wire dropers.

 

Regards

 

Roy.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Roy,

 

It would be great if working with Code 40 could be as easy as working with Code 80 (including Peco's 55/80). But it never will be.

 

Electrical resistance is going to be one factor over any distance. The other factor, which is a consideration for most folk these days, is DCC. Using fishplates as the sole method of conductivity is likely to give operational problems.

Not sure I agree with that assumption.

 

I have tried Wayne's product and it is excellent but I would be put off using it for larger projects if I had to put a wire droppers on each rail end every 0.5m and drill holes through the baseboard for them.

 

I believe Finetrax could be a very credible alternative to Peco, there is no comparison looks wise, but in my humble opinion for it to have the best chance of appealing to the wider N market it would need to be as easy to use/install as possible and for me that means rail joiners conducting the power rather than wire dropers.

 

Regards

 

Roy.

[Chris Higgs]

Roy,

 

It would be great if working with Code 40 could be as easy as working with Code 80 (including Peco's 55/80). But it never will be.

 

Electrical resistance is going to be one factor over any distance. The other factor, which is a consideration for most folk these days, is DCC. Using fishplates as the sole method of conductivity is likely to give operational problems.

 

They certainly did for me in my N gauge days. I ended soldering the fishplates on to get them to conduct reliably.

 

And despite having convinced myself they looked OK, the reality was they look like nothing you would ever see on a real railway. My view is Wayne is trying to get an absolute fidelity to real track, and fishplates of the Peco style don't really have a place in that.

 

Chris

[Roy L S]

Roy,

 

It would be great if working with Code 40 could be as easy as working with Code 80 (including Peco's 55/80). But it never will be.

 

Electrical resistance is going to be one factor over any distance. The other factor, which is a consideration for most folk these days, is DCC. Using fishplates as the sole method of conductivity is likely to give operational problems.

Hi Joseph

 

The extra work of threading the rails for each 0.5m length is totally worth the effort, I await the point kits keenly and will certainly employ it on my next layout assuming I can make a good job of them. However surely any extra electrical resistance in Code 40 rail would not necessitate a power feed every 0.5m? The issue of DCC is also acknowledged where it may be a consideration and I know that it being "two wires" is myth but again a feed every 0.5m? Also, popular though it is becoming, at this point I and a good number of fellow modellers I know are not even considering a change from Analogue.

 

Ultimately it will be up to Wayne how he progresses the product and how far he moves towards making it easy for the masses (or not depending on what is actually achievable and affordable). However (and just my personal view) much as I admire the achievements of the 2mm fraternity and accept that in most cases it involves incredible modelling skills and standards that are way beyond mine I would hate to see Finetrax's success limited by not at least considering easier alternatives (for those that would want them) and just adopting similar approach to the existing 2mm one.

 

Regards

 

Roy

 

.

[2mm Andy]

The problem with Peco-style joiners on code 40 rail will be that the wheel flange depth is relatively large compared to the rail depth, so not much room for a slide-on rail joiner.

 

Andy

[goodmayes]

Sounds like a lot of re-inventing the wheel  (sorry) going on here.

 

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this before now. There's an on-line outfit in California that has been shipping steel H rail joiners, FB points and frogs for years.  Some connection with the NMRA and their Proto SIG I think.  Apparently they support finescale N and  Z  too.

 

Ted