Jump to content
 

fiNetrax


Anglian
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've had a go at a B8 turnout the problem I don't like is the cast frog I find it weak

I'd much rather have something like what C&L do for there turnouts or even the 2mm society do ,a proper common crossing if they got rid of the cast frog ,I'd probably use the system

 

Brian

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did forget to say I do like the fintrax flexi track though I'll be using it on a future layout it does look decent .

 

Brian

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering whether it would work to use the code 40 for sidings etc (always dependent on French wheel flanges of course) and then use Peco for flat-bottomed main line rail and turnouts. Undecided how that would look at present. I'm wondering what could be done to Peco turnouts to improve their appearance - other than cutting the finger-operating pip off of course...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Cav, I see I've got some catching up to do with your new thread...

 

I agree with the sentiment entirely, but it's fine if you already have those skills. I know we all have to start somewhere/when but I my experience has so far shown me that it is going to take longer and cost more to acquire those skills to the precision needed in 2mm modelling than either my budget or desired timescale seems happy with. I should have taken the plunge years ago, then I would have that skill set now when I really need it.

 

I haven't given up on FiNetrax yet, but having possibly written off £60 on turnouts that may not be useable, it is starting to mount up... The possible change of direction is entirely my own fault, but the fact is my Arnold railcar will not go through that cast frog and is only just happy with the plain track. I simply can't get excited enough about the micro-engineering side of this hobby to want to get into dismantling minute drive trains in order to re-wheel the thing.

 

I notice that your new scheme is also small and contains only a few plain turnouts - maybe there's a reason for that? Whereas my current idea needs about 20 turnouts, many curved, and two double slips. Not sure whether I like track building enough to spend a long period of time and a lot of money building that!

 

Although you're doing an admirable job challenging this precept, I have always found that techniques do not always transfer well between scales - working in 16mm NG requires things that you just don't need to do in 4mm, for example, and coming down to 2mm, I'm not sure that just scaling everything down is workable or necessary. I have built plenty of 16mm scale track and turnouts - but 2mm feels like too much of an issue just now. Hence wondering whether the fine scale track will work where it's *cosmetically* most needed.

 

You have high-level skills and can cope, but it's nonetheless true that the small the models become, the more difficult some of the fine detail becomes - even if it's only because our eyesight doesn't change, and our fingers don't get smaller...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree Ian, hence I don't get too hung up on the lack of chairs on the flatbottom points for instance. However for me its the switchblades and crossing that matter the most. Peco just cant be acceptable in those areas.

 

The trackplan being 'simple' is not intentional other than thats what the trackplan is at Burton. If it had had 20 turnouts and 10 slips I still would have built it just the same.

Edited by RBE
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid I know little about the differences between 2 mm finescale, N gauge and anything in between. Working mostly in 4 mm scale I have successfully dabbled in N gauge, building what to my mind a nice looking turnout and plan to transfer that to an 009 layout. I have also had a go at 0 gauge and 32mm gauge 16 mm. As you say each and every scale throws up its own problems

 

Cast common crossings is a thing from the past (Peco etc) but I guess with modern casting techniques can look very well, as for soldering having the correct wattage and tip size combination of iron will make the job much easier. To my mind having hand built bespoke turnouts look so much better than putting up with RTR products

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure you would, Cav. - and you're surely right about the Peco turnouts. I haven't given up yet, though those double slips are an imponderable, and Wayne doesn't seem to have added anything new to the range for some time now.  Given (in the best possible sense) his system is a cottage-industry, maybe the product still needs to evolve, despite the careful development I know he did? It sounds as though integral chairs may be on the way...

 

I am still concerned about the operational aspects - I haven't got the depth (of baseboard or pocket) for Tortoises or Cobalts everywhere. I have been pondering whether there is any way the sting can be taken out of SEEPs to make them viable - possibly by attaching thinner, springier operating wire to them, maybe mounting them on their side to do so. No practical experiments yet, though.

 

Then there's the frog issue. I may order some more rail and try soldering up my own frog as a way round that one. I'm not totally convinced that the fixing of the cast frog is very secure either.

 

But equally, having trawled the archives and not found much more than a lot of hot air ;-) maybe there is more mileage in improving Peco track than has yet been found. Or maybe there is simply nothing waiting to be found. I may have a fiddle round on that front too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the conversation certainly prompted me to have another go... so I took the worst of the three turnouts and after an afternoon of fiddling, I made a replacement frog etc. I had to drill extra chair holes for the wing rails - quick it ain't.

 

The Arnold railcar and a Farish four-wheeled van run sweetly through it.

 

The hole was where the cast frog had to be removed...so ignore.

 

Question: now that the wing rails are separate from the crossing, can the be bonded electrically to the blades, or does it still have to be the crossing? Might be easier to make all in one piece if starting from scratch.

 

Ian

post-21295-0-61651300-1440269086_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the conversation certainly prompted me to have another go... so I took the worst of the three turnouts and after an afternoon of fiddling, I made a replacement frog etc. I had to drill extra chair holes for the wing rails - quick it ain't.

 

The Arnold railcar and a Farish four-wheeled van run sweetly through it.

Not to pick holes but the gap on the straight road looks awfully large; are you sure the wheel is supported all the way through the crossing? The check gauge doesn't look straight and turnout roads, either.

 

You may be having some issues with fiNetrax as designed as there some important points to remember; namely that the flangeway size is set to 0.85mm which is tighter than Peco. The size was chosen based on measurements and observations of modern British N gauge stock. Older stock may not work with a small flangeway gap and non-British outline stock may or may not work. In all causes you have to ensure that the b2b's are correct or you will have issues.

 

As an aside I hand-built my turnouts to a nominal 0.8mm flangeway and have had no issues at all with any of my stock; most Farish & Dapol runs fine out of the box, and I even have some old Lima coaches that will sail through.

 

Question: now that the wing rails are separate from the crossing, can the be bonded electrically to the blades, or does it still have to be the crossing? Might be easier to make all in one piece if starting from scratch.

 

Always to the frog, otherwise the wheel can cause shorts as it passes through the crossing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice. I know it's not perfect - I have no gauges or anything to work with (as yet) - and the turnout was somewhat damaged to begin with. The aim of the exercise was really to see if replacing the frog was viable - which I think it is. I'm still not convinced that the gains are worth the pain in this track business, though...

 

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, the flangeway gaps do look very large when seem from above like this. I seem to remember that there was a survey on the N Gauge Forum and that people voted for this size so that older stock could be run. Perhaps not a good idea... Alternative cast frogs with a narrower gap would improve things and reduce the chance of wheel drop as well as making the turnots look a lot better.

 

Another concern I have is how effectively the webbing between the sleepers can be disguised with ballast, without the ballast being too high.

 

I think there is a big gulf between assembling plain track and making turnouts that many people—me included—find difficult to cross. Many N gauge modellers who like soldering and making turnouts moved over to 2mm Finescale a long time ago.

 

I do wonder if there would be a market for RTR turnouts to the standards of FiNetrax. Providing the corssing ready soldered and the chairs already in place does seem to be a step in this direction.

 

Douglas

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at least N gauge modellers do have some choice - and full marks to Wayne for bringing Finetrax to market. We are unlikely to see the crossing from directly above, as in Post #211 when installed on a layout. The normal viewing angle is much shallower. This makes the gap less obvious to view. The web is very thin, so ther is no reason to think that ballasting should be a problem.

 

To my mind the biggest issue is the lack of a clear standards for British N gauge wheels and track. Without it, how can anyone know what dimensions to build track to - home made, kit or RTR?

 

As for Peco, the appearance of the point blades on code 55 track is awful. The quality of running through the frog on all turnouts is a huge disappointment. There are a number of otherwise very high quality N gauge layouts out there which constantly show very noticeable wobbling as the super-detailed stock goes through the frogs. Many people clearly can live with that - and I don't wish to criticise them in any way - but for me, smooth running and reasonably prototypical appearance are very important.

 

I don't see everyone who can make their own track migrating to 2mm Finescale any more. For a large layout, converting the stock is a huge cost and time constraint. Some stock would be quite difficult to convert. Also, wheels are much finer on N gauge stock than they used to be. For steam locos in particular, the wheels may not look perfect, but they are far more acceptable these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've run a few more items through that turnout and none of them has a problem. There is a slight wobble but only if you provoke it. That may be different from hauling something through a full formation though. But I think the photo is deceptive - for example the check rails are in the position dictated by Wayne's chairs, and the frog was soldered in situ by tapering the rails and then sliding them through the pre-existing chairs. The position is exactly the same as the cast frog. The only difference is the wing rails, which I had to make by eye, but they are still pretty close to the cast frog. The r/h bends are perhaps a little too close to the end though room for improvement on that. As I said, the main aim of the exercise was to test viability, and see what difference it made to both the appearance and railcar flanges. On those terms it seems to work.

 

However, there are other issues: as Cav says, it is perfectly possible to make 2mm-ish track - the question may be one of inclination. Nothing so far solves my problems of needing nine curved turnouts and two double slips - and it seems daft seriously to compromise other aspects of the design simply because of track availability limitations. No sign of Wayne producing those other elements yet - and curves, probably never.

 

So the next question is, is it better to go down the copper-clad route to begin with, or simply to accept that track-making isn't everyone's cup of tea and spend the time doing what we prefer (in my case scenery and buildings)? The fact that it has taken me nearly a year to get round to making three may give the answer.

 

I may go with some plain track where the stretches are long enough that the change of type is not repeatedly obvious. And it's also possible to improve Peco turnouts *somewhat* by cutting away the excess plastic around the toe/tie-bars. None of which is to knock Wayne's track - it look excellent, but until someone produces a large range of ready-to-run to that standard, I suspect many are still going to be put off. And this from someone who gave it a try in all seriousness...

 

I found the following (from central France) while surfing around last evening ;-)

 

Ian

post-21295-0-88630800-1440325121.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Well, at least N gauge modellers do have some choice - and full marks to Wayne for bringing Finetrax to market. We are unlikely to see the crossing from directly above, as in Post #211 when installed on a layout. The normal viewing angle is much shallower. This makes the gap less obvious to view. The web is very thin, so ther is no reason to think that ballasting should be a problem.

 

To my mind the biggest issue is the lack of a clear standards for British N gauge wheels and track. Without it, how can anyone know what dimensions to build track to - home made, kit or RTR?

 

As for Peco, the appearance of the point blades on code 55 track is awful. The quality of running through the frog on all turnouts is a huge disappointment. There are a number of otherwise very high quality N gauge layouts out there which constantly show very noticeable wobbling as the super-detailed stock goes through the frogs. Many people clearly can live with that - and I don't wish to criticise them in any way - but for me, smooth running and reasonably prototypical appearance are very important.

 

I don't see everyone who can make their own track migrating to 2mm Finescale any more. For a large layout, converting the stock is a huge cost and time constraint. Some stock would be quite difficult to convert. Also, wheels are much finer on N gauge stock than they used to be. For steam locos in particular, the wheels may not look perfect, but they are far more acceptable these days.

I'm one of a group at my local club, East Beds MRS, building Aylesbury Met/GC station in N gauge. We wouldn't have contemplated building an N gauge layout without Finetrax. Peco track just doesn't compare! I was tempted by the idea of 2mm, but the thought of converting all my stock put me off. A lot of the track for Aylesbury will have to be handbuilt, using Finetrax components and point bases milled by one of our members, but the result should be worth it. 

 

That reminds me, I really must start a thread about the layout, especially as the boards have now been completed. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I've had a go at a B8 turnout the problem I don't like is the cast frog I find it weak

I'd much rather have something like what C&L do for there turnouts or even the 2mm society do ,a proper common crossing if they got rid of the cast frog ,I'd probably use the system

 

Brian

 

Interestling the 2mmSA have just introduced a few point kits using the pegged chair technique along with a milled crossing in an attempt to encourage more people to have a go at constructing 2FS points. Personally however I think that using a solid crossing as per RTR track, whilst it might help make construction easier rather defeats one of the objects of making your own, that it looks better, and nothing looks better than proper rail.

 

Izzy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Precisely why I had a go at substituting it for a plain rail one. It can be done - soldering the frog in situ without melting the sleepers; actually little more difficult than fixing the cast one properly flat, attaching feed wire etc. I think it does look better, even if mine was a bit rough and ready. Wing rails proved to be more of a problem - but it would help if the holes were pre-drilled like the rest, and there was a proper bending template.

 

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

Precisely why I had a go at substituting it for a plain rail one. It can be done - soldering the frog in situ without melting the sleepers; actually little more difficult than fixing the cast one properly flat, attaching feed wire etc. I think it does look better, even if mine was a bit rough and ready. Wing rails proved to be more of a problem - but it would help if the holes were pre-drilled like the rest, and there was a proper bending template.

 

Ian

If you can't figure out Templot for yourself I'm sure that if you asked on the Templot forum someone would produce a template for you to match the FiNeTrax turnout - this would give you a template to match the wing rails (and this might just persuade you that it is no more difficult to produce the rest of the turnout yourself, then 'the worlds yours lobster' as the late George Cole might have said.......

Precisely why I had a go at substituting it for a plain rail one. It can be done - soldering the frog in situ without melting the sleepers; actually little more difficult than fixing the cast one properly flat, attaching feed wire etc. I think it does look better, even if mine was a bit rough and ready. Wing rails proved to be more of a problem - but it would help if the holes were pre-drilled like the rest, and there was a proper bending template.

 

Ian

If you can't figure out Templot for yourself I'm sure that if you asked on the Templot forum someone would produce a template for you to match the FiNeTrax turnout - this would give you a template to match the wing rails (and this might just persuade you that it is no more difficult to produce the rest of the turnout yourself, then 'the worlds yours lobster' as the late George Cole might have said.......
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can't figure out Templot for yourself I'm sure that if you asked on the Templot forum someone would produce a template for you to match the FiNeTrax turnout - this would give you a template to match the wing rails (and this might just persuade you that it is no more difficult to produce the rest of the turnout yourself, then 'the worlds yours lobster' as the late George Cole might have said.......

If you can't figure out Templot for yourself I'm sure that if you asked on the Templot forum someone would produce a template for you to match the FiNeTrax turnout - this would give you a template to match the wing rails (and this might just persuade you that it is no more difficult to produce the rest of the turnout yourself, then 'the worlds yours lobster' as the late George Cole might have said.......

Oops, no idea what happened there!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...