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

[Joseph_Pestell]

 

I wonder how the 83 line's metalwork on a sleeper base based on British sleepering would go down here? Would most modern products from Hornby and Bachmann work well on NMRA spec. track?

 

I believe that they would - because I know that they cope with Shinohara which is basically similar. It would certainly be worthwhile to do a test and if, as I suggested earlier, the next step in the process is an article in the model railway press (perhaps not Railway Modeller!), we might get their office to carry it out.

[OFFTHE RAILS]

............Any 00 track system will be a compromise simply because it is 00 but the likes of Marcway and C&L have shown that visually things can be better, but as we have discussed these systems are not suitable for everyone as they are not ready to play like Hornby or Peco...........

 

 

In summary of the thread so far (excluding history and why are where we are, fascinating though it is...) :

 

Yes ! C&L and SMP are visually better than PECO !!!

 

So for " Ready to Run" or "Ready to Lay" - whatever - we need (someone like) PECO or Tillig to offer their existing track and points with something approaching UK sleeper spacing/proportions.

 

Anyone agree?

 

Ian

 

P.S. I use SMP track with SMP plastic based  3' radius point kits for my simple end to end because I can't stand the appearance of PECO H0-ish code 75 and code 100 track (even thoughI admit it's robust and well made)

I would much prefer a PECO or Tillig code 75/Code 83 range of ready to lay points with sensible 00 sleeper proportions

[Grovenor]

Agree except for this one

 Real O scale is 1:48 (quarter inch to the foot) not 1:43.5,

If by "real" you mean gauge correctly matching scale, as in your other examples, then the correct scale for 0 gauge is 1:45 as used by some of the Europeans.1:48 is to small just as 1:43.5 is to big. Hence the existence of P48 using a correct, narrower gauge as well as S7 using a correct, wider gauge as well as P45 where only the wheel and flangeway standard need adjusting.

Keith

[Joseph_Pestell]

Agree except for this one

If by "real" you mean gauge correctly matching scale, as in your other examples, then the correct scale for 0 gauge is 1:45 as used by some of the Europeans.1:48 is to small just as 1:43.5 is to big. Hence the existence of P48 using a correct, narrower gauge as well as S7 using a correct, wider gauge as well as P45 where only the wheel and flangeway standard need adjusting.

Keith

That's why I was careful to say O scale rather than O gauge. 45mm gauge track at 1:32 or 32mm gauge track at 1:45 seems so much more sensible. Pity it did not become universal. Many Americans of course use underscale 29mm track for 1:48 models. It really is a minefield!

 

16mm gauge track at 1:90 anyone?

[Jeff Smith]

In summary of the thread so far (excluding history and why are where we are, fascinating though it is...) :

 

Yes ! C&L and SMP are visually better than PECO !!!

 

So for " Ready to Run" or "Ready to Lay" - whatever - we need (someone like) PECO or Tillig to offer their existing track and points with something approaching UK sleeper spacing/proportions.

 

Anyone agree?

 

Ian

 

P.S. I use SMP track with SMP plastic based  3' radius point kits for my simple end to end because I can't stand the appearance of PECO H0-ish code 75 and code 100 track (even thoughI admit it's robust and well made)

I would much prefer a PECO or Tillig code 75/Code 83 range of ready to lay points with sensible 00 sleeper proportions

Yes, I believe that the most likely commercial scenario is for an existing track AND point manufacturer (ie not SMP or C&L), to adapt existing rails (FB) and geometry to fit new UK style sleeper bases - these should be at typical UK spacing and cross-section (full depth) but shortened so as not to emphasise the narrower gauge. If the appearance was similar to BH SMP then a FB mainline with BH secondary lines or sidings could be accommodated with suitable packing and conversion rail connectors. Anyone wanting BH points should try assembling an SMP point kit which if memory serves me right are pretty straightforward (can't remember soldering being involved?). If this range sold well it would be time to add concrete sleepers and maybe BH.......

[hayfield]

Sorry, I forgot to reply earlier to a post which commented on the thinness of C&L and SMP sleepers.

 

I think that is a very valid point. I can remember finding it very hard to ballast SMP in a way which looked good, at least so far as the running lines were concerned. It was all too flat.

 

Plastic is not that expensive and I think that it is worth having the sleepers to scale depth as well as scale width. Dr G-F's picture of the fiNetrax point shows the sort of thing to aim for.

 

Perhaps worth making the sleeper base for 82FB that bit thinner than for 75BH so that it is easy to join the two.

 

Joseph

 

Exactoscale sleeper bases are 1.6mm thick. OK you have to thread the rail on to the sleeper bases, but that is a very easy job. Also for curved track you have to cut through the sleeper webbing, the benefit is that straight track is straight. This deviates a little from ready to plonk down instantly, but is a very easy job which takes no time, so can be seen as nearly ready to lay.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Joseph

 

Exactoscale sleeper bases are 1.6mm thick. OK you have to thread the rail on to the sleeper bases, but that is a very easy job. Also for curved track you have to cut through the sleeper webbing, the benefit is that straight track is straight. This deviates a little from ready to plonk down instantly, but is a very easy job which takes no time, so can be seen as nearly ready to lay.

John,

 

As per my post earlier, I think that track bases for the modeller to put rail into is a sensible option.

 

And I would also agree with you that rigid (i.e. webbing both sides) makes a lot of sense.

[Mythocentric]

Snip:

 

I wonder how the 83 line's metalwork on a sleeper base based on British sleepering would go down here? Would most modern products from Hornby and Bachmann work well on NMRA spec. track?

 

As I mentioned earlier, my last layout was a US inspired job based on the Wisconsin Central using the Peco Code 83 US track system. Together with my US prototype stock from Kato, Proto2000, etc., I also frequently ran my collection of UK-prototype Bachmann and Hornby locos plus suitable r-t-r and kit-built wagons/coaches with no problems. If I remember correctly UK manufacturers already use RP25 standards for wheels and have done for some time. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong though.

 

Regards

 

Bill

Edited December 14, 2013 by Mythocentric

[Ron Ron Ron]

 

I don't know if this will be helpful, as it's slightly off at a tangent from the flow, but as Tillig Elite track has been mentioned during this discussion, I thought it might be worth posting some links to comparative photos between the Peco and Tillig offerings.

 

Of course the Tillig track is European H0, but I believe there are some useful pointers that may help in defining the improvements we are seeking. Notably the pre-weathered appearance and hingeless switch rails.

 

Note also the narrower width of the rail profile; something which seems to be forgotten when discussing the height of the rail (75, 82, 83, 100).

The Peco rail is much thicker and "chunky looking". This is Code 100, but it's the same with the Code 75 version.

 

Tillig left, Peco right.

 

Tillig left, Peco right.

 

Tillig left, Peco right.

 

Tillig top, Peco bottom.

 

Tillig right, Peco left.

 

Peco top, Tillig bottom.

 

There's a useful thread from this forum too..... http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/50424-tillig-not-for-beginners/

 

Exactoscale 16.5mm 00 FB track close up.

 

 

.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Ron Ron Ron

[Jeff Smith]

Interesting, a little unfair as the Peco is code 100, but does illustrate the better looking features. This rail would look good on UK sleepers.

[Colin_McLeod]

The point (pardon the pun) wopuld have been better made comparing Peco 75 with Tillig 83

[Joseph_Pestell]

I am hoping to have a bit more time this week to produce some more template drawings and then perhaps create a survey to trial on here.

 

After that, early in the New Year, I will see if I can get some engineering prototypes produced.

[marc smith]

Although the Peco track is code 100, and is not a direct comparison
I'd like to thank Ron Ron Ron for posting those pics
You do at least get some idea of the comparative geometry, the sleepers
and something that impressed me with Tillig track - the colour of the rail....

I had a sample of Tillig flexi track a few years back, and I was impressed with the brownish colour of the rail
Almost pre-weathered for you, and rather more natural in colour than nickel silver or steel
A bit of toning down the shiny appearance of the sides of the rail, with matt varnish
and I think it should look good

As a point of note. I went to the narrow gauge show at Shepton Mallet earlier this year
It was so good, I'll be going again BTW

I found several suppliers stocked different types of rail, which was also pre-coloured
There were a couple of different brown tones, and black
These only seemed to be available for narrow gauge rail types,
sadly not including code 75 or 83 - shame

I will watch with interest - if someone is willing to produce better OO pointwork....
... I'll buy some from you!
Good luck with the survey Joseph

Cheers

[marc smith]

better looking but still not round like a wheel......

 

OO is fundametally wrong, if you make it more like SMP it looks narrow gauge..... I can live with that for my OO stuff but if I want proper Ill go back to P4 which might be harder but is also righter

 

I would again add that OO only appears narrow gauge when you're looking at it end-on

or from a "helicopter" viewpoint.....

 

In decades of going to railway shows, I've only ever seen a few layouts that can be viewed end-on

and many of us today prefer to exhibit at eye-level, or at least higher than the kitchen table

.... and even then, most viewers prefer to crouch down to get a more eye-level view....

 

Exhibiting my old layout "hendre lane" I was asked several times whether it was EM gauge,

when I replied "no" a couple even asked "oh is it P4 then?"

...most were surprised when I told them it was OO 

Exactoscale sleeper bases and Peco pointwork, with some creative sleeper spacing and weathering, weed placement etc

[ThaneofFife]

its very true about viewing angles.  If i stick with 00 for the new layout I might even consider raising its viewing height closer to eye level.

 

doesnt help with the current RTP points though which cannot really be tweaked to improve the look from eye level.

[martin_wynne]

00 gauge looks too narrow only if you say it is intended to represent 4ft-8.5in prototype gauge.

 

If you say it is intended to represent 4ft-1.5in gauge, it is spot on at 4mm/ft scale.

 

Since all 00 gauge rolling stock is built to 4ft-1.5in gauge, it would seem logical to build 4ft-1.5in track for it to run on.

 

Why do folks keep saying that 00 gauge track is too narrow but happily accept 00 gauge rolling stock? If you are happy with the latter, simply build matching track for it.

 

There is very little prototype track at 4ft-1.5in gauge, but that doesn't mean we can't build models of it. Make the sleepers 6" shorter and the track gauge 7" narrower, and you are done.

 

Martin.

[Joseph_Pestell]

00 gauge looks too narrow only if you say it is intended to represent 4ft-8.5in prototype gauge.

 

If you say it is intended to represent 4ft-1.5in gauge, it is spot on at 4mm/ft scale.

 

Since all 00 gauge rolling stock is built to 4ft-1.5in gauge, it would seem logical to build 4ft-1.5in track for it to run on.

 

Why do folks keep saying that 00 gauge track is too narrow but happily accept 00 gauge rolling stock? If you are happy with the latter, simply build matching track for it.

 

There is very little prototype track at 4ft-1.5in gauge, but that doesn't mean we can't build models of it. Make the sleepers 6" shorter and the track gauge 7" narrower, and you are done.

 

Martin.

 

I'm not sure that is a particularly helpful insight! We would all wish that our forefathers had either gone for 1:87 UK outline models on 16.5mm track or 1:76 on 18.2mm or 19mm track. But they did not, so here we are trying to find a compromise that works for most people.

[martin_wynne]

We would all wish that our forefathers had either gone for 1:87 UK outline models on 16.5mm track or 1:76 on 18.2mm or 19mm track.

 

No we don't. If you have an exact scale track gauge you must use exact scale wheel profiles. Otherwise the models must be made over scale width to accommodate RTR wheels. That's why UK-outline H0 RTR doesn't work and all H0 RTR models worldwide are over scale width in the running gear.

 

00 gauge is actually extremely sensible. The track gauge is matched to the wheel profiles, and the rolling stock can be made to 4mm/ft scale over splashers, axleboxes etc. It is then ideal for conversion to exact scale track gauge and wheels for those who want to do that. For those who don't want to do that you can simply build the corresponding 4ft-1.5in track for 00 RTR models to run on.

 

Martin.

[Jeff Smith]

No we don't. If you have an exact scale track gauge you must use exact scale wheel profiles. Otherwise the models must be made over scale width to accommodate RTR wheels. That's why UK-outline H0 RTR doesn't work and all H0 RTR models worldwide are over scale width in the running gear.

 

00 gauge is actually extremely sensible. The track gauge is matched to the wheel profiles, and the rolling stock can be made to 4mm/ft scale over splashers, axleboxes etc. It is then ideal for conversion to exact scale track gauge and wheels for those who want to do that. For those who don't want to do that you can simply build the corresponding 4ft-1.5in track for 00 RTR models to run on.

 

Martin.

From what you say that would make conversion to EM difficult as all you are really doing is re-gauging the OO wheels to EM?

[martin_wynne]

From what you say that would make conversion to EM difficult as all you are really doing is re-gauging the OO wheels to EM?

 

No, proper EM Gauge uses narrower wheels -- RP25/88 profile (2.3mm wide), as opposed to RP25/110 profile (2.8mm wide) for 00 RTR wheels.

 

It's true that EM will work with RP25/110 RTR wheels widened from 00 -- IF you have room in the model to do it. If you do that you should set such wheels to 16.4mm back-to-back instead of 16.5mm for the usual RP25/88 wheels.

 

Martin.

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Martin

 

According to http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/rp25.html RP25/88 has a wheel that is 0.088 of an inch wide, or 2.156mm and RP 25/110 has a width of 0.11 inches or 2.695mm

 

Markits PR25 wheels have a width of 2.45mm. Gibson don't seem to give their wheel width and I couldn't be bothered to look at any more sites.

 

Could not find on a quick search what the EMGS "standard" is.

[gordon s]

Well one of us has finger trouble…:-)

 

0.088" = 2.2352mm

 

0.110 = 2.7940mm

Edited December 17, 2013 by gordon s

[Clive Mortimore]

Whoops

[Jeff Smith]

Apologies to Joseph for steering the thread a little off topic but for me OO appearance is not just the track. If a decently fine, ie narrow top rail was used, like the Tillig or SMP BH, then the standard OO wheels look even worse, especially on a steam locomotive.

[martin_wynne]

Could not find on a quick search what the EMGS "standard" is.

 

The EMGS 1976 wheel profile (0.090" , 2.3mm wide) is:

 

 

A much larger more readable scan (needs scrolling) is at: http://85a.co.uk/forum/gallery/2/original/2_240523_200000000.png

 

However, most EM modellers and manufacturers have now adopted the NMRA RP25/88 profile which is very close.

 

regards,

 

Martin.