Ready-to-lay OO Track and Pointwork - moving towards production

[Joseph_Pestell]

A route down which I have travelled is to use Peco Finescale throughout, using large radius (including curved) points on lines which will be predominantly those over which coaches will travel, medium radius where loco release and empty coach stock movements will occur and small radius in places representing coal yards and private owners' sidings. I have tried to keep all the first described at a minimum of 36" radius (sometimes 60" as far as possible) with 4-6-0 locos, the second uses 30" minimum (these points are 36" nominal) for 2-6-2 prairies and the sidings are 24" minimum radius as they will use 10' and 12' wheelbase wagons and 0-6-0 panniers for shunting.

 

I only hope it turns out as well as it looks plotted out from Anyrail at full size.

 

Basically a good design philosophy as everything is compressed in a similar way giving the layout a consistent look. If, for instance, you used medium radius points throughout that would look wrong.

 

But the issue here is that you will be using an HO track (1:87 scale sleepers). Peco Code 75 has much to recommend it but those underscale sleepers spoil the look so much when compared to the likes of SMP/C&L/Exactoscale.

[Gruffalo]

Basically a good design philosophy as everything is compressed in a similar way giving the layout a consistent look. If, for instance, you used medium radius points throughout that would look wrong.

 

But the issue here is that you will be using an HO track (1:87 scale sleepers). Peco Code 75 has much to recommend it but those underscale sleepers spoil the look so much when compared to the likes of SMP/C&L/Exactoscale.

Isn't our whole modelling world something of a compromise? Looking at Little Bytham, Grantham and Peterborough North, the level of the ballast relative to the sleepers will make a positive contribution to softening the underscale sleeper dimensions.

[cromptonnut]

Perhaps the reason that the O gauge pointwork gives a more accurate "6 foot" is because, by and large, O gauge modellers are more picky about these things and a somewhat greater accuracy is require than in the smaller scales if they're going to sell to more than the few like me that don't mind compromise.

[alfsboy]

i think Martin has dropped enough hints .Peco will lose out badly if a decent realistic looking track comes out  from the South Pole ,note I didnt say scale track .

[Joseph_Pestell]

i think Martin has dropped enough hints .Peco will lose out badly if a decent realistic looking track comes out  from the South Pole ,note I didnt say scale track .

 

And there was me thinking Prince Harry was just off for a little trekking.

[Joseph_Pestell]

i think Martin has dropped enough hints .Peco will lose out badly if a decent realistic looking track comes out  from the South Pole ,note I didnt say scale track .

 

I'm not sure that Peco "will lose out badly". They already have a good distribution network in place and I would expect any new product to be significantly more expensive - probably for a niche market.

 

Commercially (and financially) very difficult to launch a new range of track to the mass market even if that is what we would like to do. It would really need to be done in collaboration with one of the major r-t-r players or with an importer/distributor who already has an "in" to a lot of shops. So that means giving a cut of the profits to someone else and, therefore, getting the development/manufacturing costs right down.

[ThaneofFife]

I said nothing about scratchbuilding everything. But compared with building a loco or coach from scratch or kits, copper-clad trackwork is easy.

 

If you stick to 00 gauge you can have good looking handbuilt track but buy in the RTR stock to run directly on it out of the box. In EM or P4 you immediately have to mess with or completely replace the wheels.

 

Finescale 00 is available now -- otherwise how could Gordon S have done this? Yes this is 00 gauge:

 

 

 

 

SMP Scaleway flexible 00 track. Copper-clad handbuilt pointwork to 00-SF standard. See: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/3422-eastwood-town-update/

 

Martin.

fine (no make that superb) for those modelling bullhead.

 

can we see a similar example using wooden and/or concrete sleepers with flat bottom rail?  Id like to see if that combo stacks up just as good given the 83 vs 75 code difference.  does the higher rail height of code 83 begin to make the track look narrow gauge?

Edited December 5, 2013 by ThaneofFife

[Gruffalo]

And there was me thinking Prince Harry was just off for a little trekking.

Bet his young nephew will get a really big train set to play with!

[Joseph_Pestell]

fine (no make that superb) for those modelling bullhead.

 

can we see a similar example using wooden and/or concrete sleepers with flat bottom rail?  Id like to see if that combo stacks up just as good.

 

I don't have any photos to hand but there have been some fine efforts using Peco Individulay components: concrete and wooden sleepers, pandrol clips and Code 82 rail.

[Budgie]

I think that's the point though Joseph, the Peco track centres are meant to be used with "trainset curves" which need the wider gap so you don't get crashes on the overhang.

 

I thought it was the setrack points and track centres that were for use with trainset curves, and streamline points and 2-inch centres were for layouts with more gentle curves.

 

There is yet another key question to do with curved diamonds. If I want a Y double junction, I would need a diamond crossing with both roads curved.

 

Perhaps C&L Finescale (mentioned here because someone referred to them earlier) could produce some paper templates for double junctions with curves extending through the diamond crossing, in Left, Right and Y, with the point frogs/V crossings being 1:6 and 1:8. Alternatively someone might produce Templot templates and make them available so I don't have to produce mine myself. Having these first would be helpful as it would let us see what we need to do before committing to anything.

 

In my case, anything I build myself has to be capable of surviving on my garden layout. If I were to replace my existing Peco Code-100 triangular junction (which is only double track around one side) with a fully double-track triangle, I will need one right hand double junction and two left hand ones, curved through the diamond crossings and beyond. I do not want to build these myself, but I might have to.

[hayfield]

 

 

 

There is yet another key question to do with curved diamonds. If I want a Y double junction, I would need a diamond crossing with both roads curved.

 

Perhaps C&L Finescale (mentioned here because someone referred to them earlier) could produce some paper templates for double junctions with curves extending through the diamond crossing, in Left, Right and Y, with the point frogs/V crossings being 1:6 and 1:8. Alternatively someone might produce Templot templates and make them available so I don't have to produce mine myself. Having these first would be helpful as it would let us see what we need to do before committing to anything.

 

In my case, anything I build myself has to be capable of surviving on my garden layout. If I were to replace my existing Peco Code-100 triangular junction (which is only double track around one side) with a fully double-track triangle, I will need one right hand double junction and two left hand ones, curved through the diamond crossings and beyond. I do not want to build these myself, but I might have to.

 

Budgie

 

In Templot a straight double junction is very easy to produce (virtually automated), A curved junction is quite a bit harder to produce. But I am certain that there is plenty of members on Templot Club willing to assist.

 

One word of warning is that building a curved diamond crossing is quite hard, I think it has to be build in 00-SF as standard 00 gauge is too coarse for reliable running. It may be possible to design the diamond crossing part to be straight which would make the build much easier

[martin_wynne]

In Templot a straight double junction is very easy to produce (virtually automated), A curved junction is quite a bit harder to produce.

 

No it isn't John. For a "regular" curved double-junction (both exits the same radius) it is exactly the same as doing a straight one. Just start with curved track instead of straight track.

 

For an "irregular" double-junction (exits differ in radius or direction) it is almost as easy. Just a few extra clicks to setup the curviform vee and create the irregular diamond..

 

Perhaps I should make you a bit of Templot video?

 

However, anyone who thinks a manufacturer is going to produce such things in ready-to-lay form is living on a different planet. There is no way the market could produce a return on the massive investment needed.

 

This is the umpteenth time the topic of better 00 track has been raised and argued on RMweb. If the same amount of energy had gone into having a go at handbuilding track, starting maybe with a turnout kit, none of you would still be asking for Peco to do it -- you would all be following in Gordon's footsteps.

 

Handbuilt track really is the only way to have prototypical flowing pointwork. Why not give it a try?

 

Martin.

[gordon s]

I've just stumbled into this thread and am more than a little surprised to find pics of an old version of ET, which was the last thing I expected.  Thanks for your kind words Martin.

 

I really sympathise with those of you want decent RTR track as I was very firmly in that camp when I started building my first layout in 2005.  Believing I would never be able to build my own track, the first versions of ET used Tillig flexible track and pointwork.  This went on for some time and I always struggled to get formations to flow.  Like you guys, I wanted someone to make a more representative UK based track and even spoke to a manufacturer at a show in general terms.  Whilst this was happening, others kept encouraging me to make my own track, but I genuinely felt that was way outside my comfort zone and couldn't be done.

 

I kept making excuse after excuse.  I didn't have the time, didn't have the skill, didn't have the component parts until eventually I gave in and bought a £4 SMP kit and a couple of gauges. I just took it very steadily and after a few hours and a few mistakes, I had something that looked like a turnout and amazingly stock ran through it.  I'm guessing that was no more than five years ago and since then I have probably made a couple of hundred or so turnouts and enjoyed every minute of it.  A straight forward 3' radius turnout can be made in less than a couple of hours and will cost no more than £4 in materials.

 

I'm certainly not going to upset this thread as I really understand where you are coming from, but years of working in electronic components and assemblies tell me that there will never be a decent return for anyone entering this field.  All the reasons have been covered many times before and I know this must be frustrating for all concerned, but from a cost perspective it is unlikely to happen in anything other than from a 'lifestyle business' and they won't be able to produce the quantities or variations required.  I appreciate this is contradiction and would suggest the volumes would be high, but costs go up as volume increases.  That could be labour costs or assembly fixtures and machines etc and whilst material costs may come down with volume, these hidden costs would never be recovered in a realistic timescale against the potential volumes that a specialised market may require.  I suspect Peco have the largest market share in the UK, so all they will be doing is replacing their existing sales with another product and until their market is under threat they can carry on suppling a market that has little or no alternative.

 

I know this isn't what you want to hear, so will bow out and leave you discuss what you believe would be a basic range.  All I can do is echo what Martin has said.  Give it a try.  It isn't difficult and will give you endless pleasure.  This is 00 track without ballast and any scenic trimmings, so perhaps is more representative what can be achieved.  It's not in the Norman Solomon class but flows and works well and gave me enormous pleasure building the formation.

 

Bearing in mind similar discussions were going on in 2005, had I not decided to build my own, I would still have the same frustrations eight years later.

 

Edited December 5, 2013 by gordon s

[cromptonnut]

A C&L "turnout in a bag" kit which contains everything you need to start building a point starts at £41 in P4 and £58 in O gauge, and that is not the sort of money that most of us can consider disposable.

[martin_wynne]

A C&L "turnout in a bag" kit which contains everything you need to start building a point starts at £41 in P4 and £58 in O gauge, and that is not the sort of money that most of us can consider disposable.

 

Have a look at Peco prices for niche UK markets -- an 0 Gauge straight turnout is £36 from Hattons, a curved one is £47. No doubt the RRP is even more.

 

If you want ready-made track at current prices it has to be by mass-production for a world-wide market.

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

While I'm sympathetic to encouraging people to have a go at building their own pointwork , we have to accept the fact that only a limited proportion of the hobby are able to build their own pointwork and achieve an acceptable result.

 

Nothing is ever going to drive that proportion above 10-20% of the hobby. I am confident that even in the 1950s 3/4rs of the hobby used ready made points (I suspect the truth is that the other 25% called themselves "scale modellers" and didn't believe the great unwashed of "proprietory modellers" were really part of railway modelling as they understood it - but I would respectfully suggest that that caste distinction should have been buried at a crossroads with a stake through its heart several decades ago).

 

Furthermore the work and time involved mean that almost everyone who builds their own pointwork is limited to building a small layout. Martin, having been heavily committed to the trackwork on Adavoyle , will probably have a far better grasp than almost anyone of the implications of trying to build a big layout using handbuilt track.

 

Handbuilt pointwork is nice, and to be encouraged, but any approach that de facto excludes 80% of the hobby - and virtually anyone who wants a big layout - from ever enjoying the benefits of better track is not going to solve this issue. Put very simply, almost anyone who wants a big layout is going to build it in OO and perforce will use ready made pointwork. 

 

So ready made OO pointwork is needed - suggesng we should stop asking and just build our own is like those postings suggesting that we shouldn't want new RTR models and should just build a loco kit instead

[Joseph_Pestell]

Back to basics, folks.

 

We all accept that one can get a better result - in terms of realism - with handbuilt track.

But this thread is based on the certain fact that some of us don't find that part of the hobby very interesting or fulfilling. We would rather spend our time on other aspects.

 

Historically, other manufacturers than Peco have made OO track and Martin tells us that there is a project to do same brewing up "south of the Equator".

 

So let's stick with the thread as it is - ready-to-lay OO track and pointwork, even if jsut for the fun of the conversation.

[Budgie]

Perhaps I should make you a bit of Templot video?

Yes please, Martin.

[Ravenser]

Turning to the substantives:

 

 

The first , perhaps , is geometry.

 

Joseph Pestell's opening post says :

 

My solution would be to take a range of existing HO track, retain all the rail parts and just give it a new base with sleepering to accepted 4mm dimensions. That should reduce tooling costs considerably.

 

 

I think there is a lot in this. However , I would question why we should depart from the Peco Streamline geometry which is the de facto standard in RTR OO , and which nobody seems unhappy with. I know it won't reproduce the flowing bespoke looks of complex formations on the real thing - but no RTR track range can do that, and if there are only going to be afew items in the range , the "decent OO track " range being proposed won't do that either

 

This goes directly to the question raised by Joseph of the proposed track centres. I don't think a commercial ready made range can change from Streamline's current 50mm centres. If you go to a "scale" 45mm, then Mk1s will foul each other on a double track curve at less than 2'6" . With C3 restriction stock at the 72'/23m mark you'll need rather more than that.

 

The practical reality is that a lot of folk are in OO because the only way they can build their layout in the space they have is with curves down to 2' or below. And a lot of folk will now be running C3 restriction stock . So 50mm centres are the tightest that's practical for the OO market.

 

I say this even though both my little home layout and the club project I used to be involved with used 45mm centres. In the case of Blacklade, it's terminus to FY, effectively straight and the min radius is 2'6" , and I was very restricted in width 

 

Joseph refers to "no 6" points , but does this mean the C+L style prototype B6, a US geometry "#6" or a Peco medium point? I'm not sure there's any obvious benefit in switching to the different geometry of the first or second - and it goes against reusing the geometry and rail components of existing track

Edited December 5, 2013 by Ravenser

[martin_wynne]

This goes directly to the question raised by Joseph of the proposed track centres. I don't think a commercial ready made range can change from Streamline's current 50mm centres. If you go to a "scale" 45mm, then Mk1s will foul each other on a double track curve at less than 2'6" . With C3 restriction stock at the 72'/23m mark you'll need rather more than that.

 

The prototype varies the track spacing according to the radius. 6ft way on straight track, somewhat more on curves to allow for vehicle overhang.

 

Just another illustration of what you can do easily with handbuilt track, but is almost impossible with a ready-to-lay range of fixed geometry.

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

The next substantive , which hasn't been raised, is "track standard".

 

My big fear when I read Martin Wynne's heavy hints about a possible product from south of the Equator relates to this. Certain very vocal voices from south of the Equator have routinely disrupted discussions like this over the last 7-8 years. One of their tactics - especially in a notorious poll - has been to present only 2 options : either Peco "as is", or "a new OO track to a track standard too fine to take any current RTR wheels"  

 

My fear is that a south of the Equator  track source might have been influenced/mislead by those very vocal voices south of the Equator into producing a preoduct which won't be compatible with current British OO RTR and which will therefore fail. That would be a disaster for us all. 

 

A new OO point should be made to a "standard" fully compatible with modern RTR wheels (RP25/110) - current Peco is too coarse to be ideal. As a DOGA member I believe DOGA's OO Intermediate Standard fits the bill - and the old BRMSB track standard, widely used by those building therir own OO track, is (just) compliant with the DOGA Intermediate standard. For me , this is the way to go

[martin_wynne]

My fear is that a south of the Equator  track source might have been influenced/mislead by those very vocal voices south of the Equator into producing a preoduct which won't be compatible with current British OO RTR and which will therefore fail. That would be a disaster for us all.

 

Look at the hints already dropped on another forum. The answer is 00-SF (fully compatible with RP25/110 wheels on sensible radii).

 

No-one is going to be ploughing any other furrow.

 

Martin.

[cromptonnut]

Instead of "dropping hints" you could just spell it out for those of us who don't bother with "other forums".

[cromptonnut]

LIfeboatman, I don't think anyone would disagree that handbuild track can give a better and more prototypical appearance.

 

My problem is that I like a layout to look balanced.  If you have beautifully handbuilt and weathered stock running on shiny Peco setrack curves, to me that looks as out of place as beautifully hand-laid track with shiny out-of-the-box stock running on it.

 

Then of course there's the "if you are going to handbuild track you might as well go to EM/P4 as it is more accurate" argument which, again, not everyone wants to do because of the extra costs and hassle.

 

Unfortunately it's this sort of attitude which, by natural extension, ends up at the "if you don't make it all yourself by hand then you aren't a proper modeller" argument, that made me quit a certain scale specific organisation earlier this year and almost put me off modelling altogether.

 

Modelling is all about compromises, and at the end of the day we all have to make them - it's what we decide is acceptable for ourselves that matters.  Even if you handbuild all your track and stock, your steam locos are still usually running on 12v DC and the people don't move, the trees don't grow and the grass doesn't need cutting.

[Vistisen]

One of the problems with OO gauge track would be that the webbing between sleepers will be even more obvious because of the greater distance between sleepers. I've been thinking about how to solve this problem I arrived at the idea of having the sleepers loose on the rails, the track is laid with the sleepers held at the correct distance by a plastic strip in between the rails. This strip should be castellated on the underside to help keep the sleepers apart at the correct distance. Once the track is glued in place, the strip is lifted up before ballasting. The strip should not be too wide as this would cause problems on curves, and not so deep as to risk also being glued down. This would make is easy to change sleeper types and distances between them as wished .