16.5mm traditional OO gauge. Classic steam era pointwork.

[martin_wynne]

I remain firmly convinced that the only logical or engineering-sensible solution to this conundrum is the one proposed by the BRMSB over half a century ago, and actually practised by most 00 modellers for several years thereafter.

 

I realise that this probably puts me in a minority of 1 (nothing new there), and many regard it as eccentric, but there we are.

 

Essentially:

 

1. design properly-engineered UK-style track for 4ft-1.5in gauge.

 

2. make an accurate 4mm/ft scale model of it.

 

This has the advantage that it properly matches the 4ft-1.5in gauge rolling stock supplied for 00 gauge, and doesn't look silly when such stock runs over it.

 

The design of prototype 4ft-1.5in track is an interesting exercise in its own right. Almost certainly it would use the same standard components as 4ft-8.5in track. But such track would very likely use 8ft sleepers (instead of 8ft-6in for 4ft-8.5in gauge). This would save on ballast costs and maybe allow a slightly narrower underlying formation and earthworks.

 

However the weight of the 4ft-1.5in rolling stock is going to be substantially the same as its 4ft-8.5in equivalents. So there would be case for compensating for the reduced bearing area of the shorter sleepers by reducing the spacing between them. This might mean going to 25 or 26 sleepers per 60ft rail for straight track (instead of 24 for 4ft-8.5in gauge track), with corresponding increases for curved track.

 

The object of the exercise is to create a track which looks as though it would support the weight of the traffic running over it. And be maintainable for line and level by the local gang in the process. If the track looks too feeble to do that it makes the whole model look silly.

 

The objection to this idea seems to be that it doesn't look like 4ft-8.5in track. What I don't understand is why would it need to? Obviously 4ft-1.5in track is going to look slightly different from 4ft-8.5in track, both on the prototype and on the model.

 

Martin.

[ThePurplePrimer]

Hi Martin

 

I found your post above really interesting and though provoking - thanks.

 

One thing you said in it was "with corresponding increases for curved track"

 

Is it normal to have closer sleepers on curved track sections ? ( genuine question btw )

[hayfield]

Martin

 

I am with you on this one, certainly when I have shown modellers C&L 00 gauge plain track next to Peco's code 75 they can clearly see and appreciate the difference. If modellers and manufacturers are to make the investment in a new track system then it must be clearly different to justify the cost of replacement

 

Narrowing the distance between the sleepers seems to have been common practice in 00 gauge in the past with both SMP, Exactoscale and C&L doing so, I guess to compensate visually for the narrowing of the gauge.

 

I can accept the train of thought that any improvement is better than none, but purely on the marketing aspect (to generate sales) a sales pitch of a completely new and to scale track system must be an add man's and sales directors dream 

[Grovenor]

Martin,

While your concept of designing track for an imaginary prototype is logical enough do you have any evidence whatebver that the BRMSB approached it from that angle?

1. design properly-engineered UK-style track for 4ft-1.5in gauge.

I suspect you are just inferring this from the result which could have been arrived at in numerous ways.

 

2. make an accurate 4mm/ft scale model of it.

Nothing in the BRMSB standards suggests that accurate scale models were intended, just compromises to suit the wheels that they considered were the best that could be hoped for. I don't believe the BRMSB postulated a prototype with over wide deep flanged wheels on narrow gauge track.

IMHO You should take ownership of your concept, not rty to put such thoughts in the minds of the BRMSB.

Regards

[martin_wynne]

Is it normal to have closer sleepers on curved track sections?

 

Hi Rob,

 

Yes. Depending on radius, and also on ground conditions, traffic levels, etc.

 

Here is an 00 screenshot from Templot. It's for 4mm/ft scale*, it hasn't been rescaled to H0 or any in-between size. The sleepers are 8ft (32mm long). There are 26 sleepers per 60ft rail, with closed up spacing towards the rail joints, matching prototype practice for jointed track.

 

 

26 sleepers per 60ft rail were used:

 

on curves below 20 chains radius,

 

and on straight or straighter track where

 

there are water troughs;

in tunnels;

on "soft ground" (which could mean anywhere for a model).

 

On curves between 20 chains radius and 40 chains radius the normal spacing was 25 per 60ft rail.

 

On straight track the normal spacing was 24 per 60ft rail.

 

20 chains radius is equivalent to 5280mm radius in 00 (about 17ft radius).

 

This is for traditional wooden-sleepered jointed track. The spacings for modern long-welded rail on concrete sleepers are different.

 

*for 4ft-1.5in gauge, the same as 00 rolling-stock.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Grovenor]

 

One thing you said in it was "with corresponding increases for curved track"

 

Is it normal to have closer sleepers on curved track sections ? ( genuine question btw )

Yes in certain circumstances, usually for tight curves in heavily used track, one or two additional sleepers were specified for 60ft lengths, similar adjustments for CWR.

Regards

[martin_wynne]

While your concept of designing track for an imaginary prototype is logical enough do you have any evidence whatever that the BRMSB approached it from that angle?

 

Hi Keith,

 

In the absence of an ability to receive messages from the departed, no I don't. However the BRMSB included engineers in its make-up (J. N. Maskelyne was chairman), so I don't believe it is too fanciful to assume they were mindful of creating track that would look like a proper engineered result.

 

You should take ownership of your concept

If you say so, but I don't believe it is especially novel or original. Just forgotten.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[47137]

Hi Graeme,

 

If you are seriously proposing to make commercial UK-bullhead pointwork for H0 scale I think you are daft in the head. There is no matching plain flexi-track. Don't tell your bank manager.

 

 

It would need to be very old or very worn. Your local railway museum would be interested in acquiring it.

 

Given that code 75 bullhead rail is readily available from the wire-drawers, and smaller bullhead rail section isn't, I'm puzzled where you are going with this.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Measuring up some SMP Scaleway flexitrack:

1. sleeper pitch = 8.8 mm, representing 30" @ 1:87 (I've measured this as 88 mm over ten consecutive sleepers)

2. sleeper length = 31 mm, representing 8' 10" @ 1:87 (which could represent 9' or 8' 6")

3. gauge = 16.5 mm, representing (etc)

 

whereas,

4. sleeper width = 3.3 mm, representing 10" @1:76

5. rail height = 0.075", representing an application for 1:76 main line

 

So out of the five parameters, three of the five are good for H0.

 

I understand Martin's point about a scale model of 4'1" track, and it is clearly a straightforward if slightly clinical thing to define, but I think most purchasers of ready-made track and pointwork (turnoutwork?) for 00 will be looking for some visual tricks and deceptions to make their track look a bit like standard gauge. My own preference at the moment is for a 1:87 scale model of British track, because at least this makes for a chance of a scale model, but for me it has had the unexpected consequence of prompting a venture into at British H0. This is pleasant enough for me, but clearly not what we are trying to devise here :-)

 

- Richard.

[martin_wynne]

My own preference at the moment is for a 1:87 scale model of British track, because at least this makes for a chance of a scale model

 

But it's not a scale model if you run it past a 4mm/ft signal box, or alongside a 4mm/ft platform, or through a 4mm/ft goods shed. Or run 4mm/ft trains on it.

 

Certainly 4mm scale 4ft-1.5in track looks a little "different", but it doesn't look silly.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

Measuring up some SMP Scaleway flexitrack:

1. sleeper pitch = 8.8 mm

2. sleeper length = 31 mm

3. gauge = 16.5 mm

4. sleeper width = 3.3 mm

5. rail height = 0.075"

 

Let's look at this for a 4mm/ft scale model of 4ft-1.5in gauge track.

 

sleeper length = 31 mm

That's 7ft-9in. A bit shorter than I might have preferred, but I think the pyramid of ballast below each chair will still be just sufficient to support the traffic without needing constant packing. It's rather an odd size to ask of the timber yard. Perhaps we can specify it as a minimum length, allowing the yard some leeway on nominal 8ft sleepers. I have seen Midland & Great Northern drawings specifying a sleeper length of 8ft-11in (in the days when the nominal length was 9ft).

 

sleeper pitch = 8.8 mm

To compensate for the reduced bearing area of the shorter sleepers (for the same weight of traffic as 4ft-8.5in gauge track), I suggested increasing the sleeper count to 26 per 60ft rail for straight track, with perhaps 27 for curves below 40 chains radius, and 28 per 60ft rail below 20 chains radius and on poor ground conditions.

 

27 sleepers per 60ft scales to an average spacing of 8.9mm.

 

28 sleepers per 60ft scales to an average spacing of 8.6mm.

 

So at 8.8mm spacing we are in the right ball-park, with some allowance for shuffling them to represent the closed-up spacing at rail joints.

 

sleeper width = 3.3 mm

Spot-on for 10" wide UK-pattern sleepers.

 

rail height = 0.075"

Spot-on for BS-95R bullhead rail.

 

gauge = 16.5 mm

Spot-on for 4ft-1.5in gauge track.

 

So on the face of it, this SMP Scaleway track is a perfect 4mm/ft scale model of UK 4ft-1.5in gauge railway track.

 

Now we just need some matching pointwork.

 

Martin.

[AndyID]

That's odd. I'm measuring SMP sleeper lengths between 31.42 and 31.48 mm and the widths seem to lie between 3.42 and 3.48 mm. Nominally, they might be 31.45 X 3.45. I'm measuring the same pitch as Richard.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Scientific confirmation of what most of us have already experienced visually: Layouts using SMP track look pretty good until you look closely at the pointwork.

[gordon s]

As someone who does look closely at plain track and pointwork, I can't disagree with you, Joseph, but I suspect we are in a minority.  

 

Most people will not notice the difference from 3' away and therein lies the rub.  Peco have got away with it for years, so it will take some clever marketing to turn traditional Peco customers around. This is definitely where the internet is your friend and if can build a buzz around any new product via the web, you could turn the tide if the price premium is not too great.  

 

The old days meant a substantial marketing budget for magazine adverts and developing a network of stockists.  Those routes to market have been seriously challenged by internet marketing and slick delivery methods, so it is possible to compete with larger organisations if your manufacturing/marketing/pricing strategies are well thought through.

[martin_wynne]

That's odd. I'm measuring SMP sleeper lengths between 31.42 and 31.48 mm and the widths seem to lie between 3.42 and 3.48 mm. Nominally, they might be 31.45 X 3.45. I'm measuring the same pitch as Richard.

 

Hi Andy,

 

I believe the SMP sleeper base was re-tooled in recent years, including a much improved representation of the chairs. How old is your track?

 

It would be good to have confirmation of the sizes from someone with recent production. Likewise for the C&L sleeper base (for which the mould tool has needed several repairs in recent years if you follow the reports on the C&L web site).

 

Martin.

[Craigw]

 

 

 Peco have got away with it for years, so it will take some clever marketing to turn traditional Peco customers around. This is definitely where the internet is your friend and if can build a buzz around any new product via the web, you could turn the tide if the price premium is not too great.  

 

 

 

Gordon,

 

I don't think that Peco have "got away" with anything.

 

Simply put, track work is and always has been, the poor relation of the hobby (well one of them). The very vast majority of people want to slap it down and run trains and are not terribly concerned about the detail of track, let alone company or regional specifics. Those who are bothered by such things will migrate to hand laying. The number of people commenting on this thread is relatively small and I think this reflects what I said above. Would "proper" bull head based RTR 16.5 mm track sell? It probably would, though I suspect that if it is priced substantially above Peco it wont in the numbers to be financially viable. 

 

Regards,

 

Craig W

[gordon s]

Just measured a piece of new SMP purchased earlier in the year and it's nominally 31.5 x 3.4mm, but we're talking about one or two hundred's of a mm difference and it is possible to see minute elements of flash on the moulding.  It is a soft plastic anyway, so there will always be variations, particularly in the length.

[martin_wynne]

Just measured a piece of new SMP purchased earlier in the year and it's nominally 31.5 x 3.4mm, but we're talking about one or two hundred's of a mm difference and it is possible to see minute elements of flash on the moulding.  It is a soft plastic anyway, so there will always be variations, particularly in the length.

 

Hi Gordon,

 

The required scale width is 10" = 3.33mm

 

3.4mm = 10.2", i.e. about 10.3/16", which I would think is within the tolerance from the timber yard on rough sawn timber.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[gordon s]

Here's a scan taken a few minutes ago  of a complete length of SMP sleeper strip.  It's approximately 150mm long, but shows the problems of trying to measure exact dimensions.  The soft plastic does show flash in several areas of the mould, probably due to a combination of mould tool wear and a soft plastic.

 

This view is from the rear.  I tried to scan from the front, but the height of the chairs took the sleepers out of focus. (Click on the picture for a much larger pic).

 

Although this is a harsh picture SMP track can look fine when painted and ballasted.

 

 

[ThePurplePrimer]

I am increasingly interested in this idea of modelling 4' 1.5" track in 4mm scale - to me, it makes some sense.

 

I have another question for Martin

 

What single 1st , in a potential range, turnout would you suggest. Something that would compare in popularity say with a Peco medium point.

 

I think what I really mean is what spec and dimensions would you personally suggest for a 16.5mm turnout - and is there a Templot template of it that we could download too please ?

[47137]

Let's look at this for a 4mm/ft scale model of 4ft-1.5in gauge track.

 

. . .

 

So on the face of it, this SMP Scaleway track is a perfect 4mm/ft scale model of UK 4ft-1.5in gauge railway track.

 

Now we just need some matching pointwork.

 

I think of Mark Twain as a railway modeller: lies, damned lies, and model railway track.

 

But at the end of the day, if we arrive at something which looks the part, and whether we do this by arguing the case for technical details or the case for aesthetics or a mixture of the two, then we will have succeeded. I take all of Martin's points on board.

 

- Richard.

[coachmann]

Preamble :

Track is only as good as its foundations. Also there is the miss-match factor of coupling together different manufacturers products. Marcway produces points only. Couple them to SMP and the sleeper lengths and spacing differs. C+L produces yard lengths of bullhead track but their points have to be hand built from parts. The points mentioned on this thread vary wildly and have left me wondering which matching plain track they would couple up to if they were ever to be produced? Of the ready-to-plonk track systems, only Peco produces matching points and track which, provided the foundation is flat, will give trains a smooth path. But I have read complaints that the thick sleepers are a pain to ballast.

 

Production :

Producing a chaired point is a dead-end unless it also has matching plain track. Say for arguments sake the new thicker sleepered C+L E4FT EMBH '00' bullhead plain track is the appearance to aim for, this takes care of sleeper spacing and rail. So then the construction has to be thought through :  The point base & chairs would need to be produced from very hard plastic to support the finished unit if the turnout is to have a desirable strength. The unit could be firmed-up if the daylight below the rail was filled in with plastic.

[MikeTrice]

Interesting. It sounds as if we are finally arriving towards a concensus.

 

B6?

[martin_wynne]

I am increasingly interested in this idea of modelling 4' 1.5" track in 4mm scale - to me, it makes some sense. I have another question for Martin. What single 1st , in a potential range, turnout would you suggest. Something that would compare in popularity say with a Peco medium point. I think what I really mean is what spec and dimensions would you personally suggest for a 16.5mm turnout - and is there a Templot template of it that we could download too please ?

 

Hi Rob,

 

This is where the model railway hobby gets interesting -- much more fun than simply copying an existing prototype.

 

Having adopted the reduced 4ft-1.5in gauge to allow for sharper curves and lower earthwork costs, you are going to have to put on your Permanent Way Engineer's hat and make some important decisions if you want to carry a similar weight of traffic to a 4ft-8.5in gauge railway.

 

If you use the readily available SRE (REA) crossing chair castings, your crossing timbers are going to have to be spaced at 2ft-6in centres to match. But I have already suggested that the more concentrated ground loading of the reduced gauge would suggest a closer sleeper spacing for plain track, and you may feel that the same applies to the timber spacings through your pointwork.

 

So you could perhaps consider creating your own range of chair castings for crossings, spaced perhaps at 2ft-3in centres. You may have formed an association with the engineers of other 4ft-1.5in railways (similar to the REA for 4ft-8.5in railways), to create a standard range of such castings and switch and crossing designs.

 

Before the grouping in 1923 and the creation of the REA, most of the larger pre-group companies did each have their own designs, and some companies never adopted the REA designs, e.g. the GWR which continued with its own designs to the end, and into the BR(W) period.

 

So it is not too fanciful to suggest a separate range of designs for 4ft-1.5in railways. Fortunately Templot lets you try them out without needing to resort to a drawing board and slide rule.

 

As to what typical size(s) of turnout it is not easy to make recommendations. Firstly you have to bear in mind that for a similar radius, the 4ft-1.5in gauge requires a flatter crossing angle than for 4ft-8.5in gauge. Then it depends of the type of railway and the site constraints.

 

Generally for engineers building running line crossovers, station throats and junctions, a turnout around 1:7 or 1:8 would be needed as a minimum. For lines needing to fit pointwork on sharp curves, a curved 1:10 turnout would be almost essential. For the construction of yards and depots and cramped inner-city terminii, a shorter 1:6 turnout would be handy.

 

I will have a think and see what I can provide as download Templot files. I suspect however that we are moving away from the intent of this topic and may get chased off it. There is also the need to decide whether to adopt the standard 4ft-1.5in gauge, or go a fraction smaller to 4ft-0.6in, allowing running powers from other companies lines which use a narrower wheel profile.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[mightbe]

Preamble :

Track is only as good as its foundations. Also there is the miss-match factor of coupling together different manufacturers products. Marcway produces points only. Couple them to SMP and the sleeper lengths and spacing differs. C+L produces yard lengths of bullhead track but their points have to be hand built from parts. The points mentioned on this thread vary wildly and have left me wondering which matching plain track they would couple up to if they were ever to be produced? Of the ready-to-plonk track systems, only Peco produces matching points and track which, provided the foundation is flat, will give trains a smooth path. But I have read complaints that the thick sleepers are a pain to ballast.

 

Production :

Producing a chaired point is a dead-end unless it also has matching plain track. Say for arguments sake the new thicker sleepered C+L E4FT EMBH '00' bullhead plain track is the appearance to aim for, this takes care of sleeper spacing and rail. So then the construction has to be thought through :  The point base & chairs would need to be produced from very hard plastic to support the finished unit if the turnout is to have a desirable strength. The unit could be firmed-up if the daylight below the rail was filled in with plastic.

 

A few niggly points:

 

Mismatch is a manufactured problem--Ideally, the turnouts won't match the plain track. Why? Because it doesn't on the prototype. Different timber width and different spacing (variable to boot!). On REA designs, the three timbers 'before' the points are 12" and should not match the regular size and spacing. Mismatch of chair detail may be an unavoidable problem, but not a major one--at least not from 2' away. Even the basic SMP design passes muster, even though Exactoscale chairs are the bees' knees. We really oughtn't compare Marcway--it truly is the poorest relation, and the farthest from what the OP suggests.

 

Height mismatch is again a non-issue--there are incredibly simple solutions to marry turnouts with any depth of timber to flextrack with any depth of sleepers. 

 

Ballasting is an irrelevant question--no matter what is put into production a certain subset will find that their usual ballasting technique won't work. And yet (some) people have figured out how to adapt (begrudgingly, complaining at every stage). 

 

Also, this is pedantic, but E4FT corresponds to an Exactoscale product. It's important to make the distinction, because C&L sells both the C&L and Exactoscale ranges, and the two are very different and easy to confuse. Oddly though, I can't find the product you mention in the 00 section (not to mention that the 00 Exactoscale BH base is sold out with a note not to order). I assume by the code the product you've given must be the EM bullhead version.

 

Quentin

[coachmann]

A few niggly points:

 

Mismatch is a manufactured problem--Ideally, the turnouts won't match the plain track. Why? Because it doesn't on the prototype. Different timber width and different spacing (variable to boot!). On REA designs, the three timbers 'before' the points are 12" and should not match the regular size and spacing. Mismatch of chair detail may be an unavoidable problem, but not a major one--at least not from 2' away. Even the basic SMP design passes muster, even though Exactoscale chairs are the bees' knees.

 

Height mismatch is again a non-issue--there are incredibly simple solutions to marry turnouts with any depth of timber to flextrack with any depth of sleepers. 

 

Ballasting is an irrelevant question--no matter what is put into production a certain subset will find that their usual ballasting technique won't work. And yet people have figured out ways to adapt (begrudgingly).

 

Also, this is pedantic, but E4FT corresponds to an Exactoscale product. It's important to make the distinction, because C&L sells both the C&L and Exactoscale ranges, and the two are very different and easy to confuse. Oddly though, I can't find the product you mention in the 00 section (not to mention that the 00 Exactoscale BH base is sold out with a note not to order). I assume by the code the product you've given must be the EM bullhead version.

 

Quentin

Bye......