16.5mm traditional OO gauge. Classic steam era pointwork.

[MikeTrice]

Is the death star to 00 or H0 or have the P4 boys finally got their hands on one ?

No it is OO across its equator and HO top to bottom.

[tender]

If my earlier post gave the impression of set track as supplied in train sets then I do apologise, I was referring to Peco streamline which seems to predominate many featured layouts in the magazines and a good many exhibition layouts.

[sharris]

Is the death star to 00 or H0 or have the P4 boys finally got their hands on one ?

 

Just to confuse the Rebel Alliance, they built the Death Star to 4mm finescale standards, but made the trench H0 so when it came to the final bombing run, the rebel alliance discovered their X-wing fighters wouldn't fit down the trench.

[Semi Fast]

What would appeal to me:

• Phase 1: Bullhead, LH & RH points and a single slip, timbers to complement C&L plain track.  Points no longer than about 10", modifiable for crossover use (if possible).
• Phase 2: Double slip, Y point, LH & RH catch points, maybe 3 way or tandem - to complement phase 1.
• Phase 3: Shorter points for yards, etc., curved points, crossovers.
• Phase 4: FBR (mid-20th century style) plain track, points as per phase 1
• Phase 5 & 6: FBR as for 2 & 3 above.

Despite (or because of) the diversions and discussions on this thread, I have found it educational and thought-provoking.  I must admit to belonging to the school of "If it looks right, it is right".  I know, I know... 00 can never be "right" - but the eye can be deceived.

 

Andrew

[gr.king]

Martin wonders why (he perceives) that my replies "are bad tempered". As one of those who has totally ignored one of the "bold points" in the original post, I think he knows very well why I get annoyed. Of course, what he is really trying to do, with his mates, is to make it look as if I am the villain here.

 

Well please refer back to the relevant phrases in the original post:

 

Please respect the intended purpose of this topic and leave those genuinely interested ..........to discuss the intended subject matter of simple cosmetic improvement here

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of those words in bold was simple. I wish there had been some way to make that one word "double-extra-bold". Yet we have had the posting of goodness knows how many tables and illustrations of technical facts and figures, trotting out again and again the idea that OO modellers should be modelling a non existent narrower prototype gauge rather than the standard gauge that they are trying to portray, talking at length about changing point geometry entirely from the mass market commercial standard, discussing plain track when the topic is defined as pointwork, along with various other distractions and digressions along the way.

 

The topic, as I have said before, has become so unwieldy that anybody interested by the original post could easily be forgiven for abandoning any attempt to read it within the first few pages.

 

Now what could possibly have made me irritable at times?????

[martin_wynne]

Of course, what he is really trying to do, with his mates, is to make it look as if I am the villain here.

 

Hi Graeme,

 

What possible reason would I have for wanting to do that? And I'm pleased to learn that I have some "mates", I'm just wondering who they are?

 

Graeme, your problems with this topic have been entirely caused by the title you gave it:

 

 16.5mm traditional 00 gauge.  Classic steam era pointwork.

 

Which is the exact opposite of what you wanted to talk about.

 

"16.5mm traditional 00 gauge" means the BRMSB 00 gauge track which 00 modellers were using for years before Peco introduced their Streamline range. And which 00 modellers who build their own track are still using. It has no relevance whatsoever to the Peco product which you wanted to discuss (which is neither traditional nor 00 gauge).

 

"Classic steam era pointwork" clearly refers to UK prototype track. Which again has no relevance to the Peco product which you wanted to discuss.

 

Everyone in this topic has been discussing the subject matters as set out by you in the topic title. I don't think it is reasonable to object to that.

 

Had you called this topic "How could Peco modify their track to make it look better?" or some such words, you could have had a totally different discussion.

 

Perhaps you should start again with a new topic on those lines?

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[MikeTrice]

Thanks for this Andrew. It did set me thinking (always a dangerous activity).

 

Assuming any producer was to follow prototype S+C practice what might be produced and how would they be phased (again assuming not all items would be produced in one shot).

 

A tandem would suggest some combination of B6/B8 in some form. If that is not to form the first release then initially a B6 or a B8. To fullfill Andrew's not greater than 10" requirement then a B6 but that would not be everyone's preference.

 

As to a wye I guess a 1 in 4 to compliment the B8. Slips can be either 1:6 or 1:8 so either could be provided. Crossings, 1:4, 1:6 or 1:8

 

For shorter turnouts A4 and A5.

 

I have just scratched the surface there and will probably be corrected have other suggestions recommended in their place, but worth discussing?

 

P.S. If just Peco geometries are adopted then there are different priorities.

[Junctionmad]

Junctionmad calibrated it for me. I checked it against a piece of P4 track and it says the gauge is 0.65". Close enough I think.

I'm fully calibrated

[HeeleyBridge]

Personally I see no gain in diverting away from PECO fixed crossing angle geometry, simply substituting REA standards for PECO ones is merely just swapping one for the other with no gain. Those of us that want flowing track work , will allways be forced to handbuilt as we end up with custom measurements.

 

Given PECO geometry exists and is supported by many track planning systems , I don't see any valid reason for switching to any alternative geometry

 

Given that Peco exists and is supported by many users and track planning aids, why change anything at all?

 

Off to play with his Tri-ang Universal track. It's ballasted, nice sleeper spacing, has built in solenoids and still works after over 50 years Now where did I put my smoke oil for Brittania?

[MikeTrice]

... and remember, no lives were lost in the making of this debate

Yet.

[Junctionmad]

Given that Peco exists and is supported by many users and track planning aids, why change anything at all?

 

Off to play with his Tri-ang Universal track. It's ballasted, nice sleeper spacing, has built in solenoids and still works after over 50 years Now where did I put my smoke oil for Brittania?

Three reasons

1. It looks and is wrong for 4mm /foot scaling

2. It's FB rail head in a PECO clip

3. The check rails aren't metal

 

 

Fix 1, with C& L thick plastic sleeper dimensions

Fix 2, change to chairs and BH rail

Fix 3 , use metal

 

Why change anything else.

( ok you could argue the blades should be machine not cast , I'll give you that )

[Semi Fast]

Personally I see no gain in diverting away from PECO fixed crossing angle geometry, simply substituting REA standards for PECO ones is merely just swapping one for the other with no gain. Those of us that want flowing track work , will allways be forced to handbuilt as we end up with custom measurements.

 

Given PECO geometry exists and is supported by many track planning systems , I don't see any valid reason for switching to any alternative geometry

 

Ultimately, I hope to build my own.  But like others on here, I would like an option to use a RTL system for a quick build.  And I wouldn't envisage mixing Peco (other brands are available) with the "new" system, at least in the scenic areas - so why not use the opportunity to come up with a different (and more realistic) geometry?  Judging by the continual updates to AnyRail, adding a new system to planning software is not a difficult job. 

[HeeleyBridge]

I wasn't being serious, well apart from my Tri-ang track which I realise is more likely 60 years old and can be cleaned by using an angle grinder without any ill effects.

 

I would also say that I see no reason to use Peco geometry as it would be unlikely to mix turnouts in a crossover for instance. Layout planning software can be updated to accommodate new geometry fairly easily (or should be able to).

[tender]

Three reasons

1. It looks and is wrong for 4mm /foot scaling

2. It's FB rail head in a PECO clip

3. The check rails aren't metal

 

4. The slips are 24" radius.

[raymw]

In a similar vein, I'm not happy that we a stuck with the 'QWERTY' keyboard. There are 'better ones' around, but most folk are happy with what they've got.

 

I am not into 00/H0 but I can see, from the manufacturing viewpoint why track-work is like it is, and there being no need to change what is widely accepted. Perhaps, maybe a new player may cause an upset, but they would have to most likely come in with a complete system, not just flexible track, and in reality they would have to have a few quid to waste, since it would be some years before they got to a break-even situation. As a business venture, they would be better off doing most anything else.

 

Whatever was made, would not be perfect for everyone, since perfection can not be achieved in a subjective situation, so only some of those who are not satisfied with current rtl would be satisfied with the new stuff, and some of those would not want to pay more.

 

I reckon a new rtl system would be taking sales from those who are currently making handmade track (since the others are using rtl that exists already) and that is not a very big market.

 

Best wishes,

 

Ray

[hayfield]

Given that Peco exists and is supported by many users and track planning aids, why change anything at all?

 

Off to play with his Tri-ang Universal track. It's ballasted, nice sleeper spacing, has built in solenoids and still works after over 50 years Now where did I put my smoke oil for Brittania?

 

 

The one (and only good thing in my opinion) is that it both works and formations can easily be built

 

Three reasons

1. It looks and is wrong for 4mm /foot scaling

2. It's FB rail head in a PECO clip

3. The check rails aren't metal

 

 

Fix 1, with C& L thick plastic sleeper dimensions

Fix 2, change to chairs and BH rail

Fix 3 , use metal

 

Why change anything else.

( ok you could argue the blades should be machine not cast , I'll give you that )

 

Certainly you have explained what's wrong with Peco's offering for 00 gauge historic (instead of modern era), what will work is what you have suggested on to Peco's footprint. This will create a system which is tried and tested, though for many may not go far enough in looking correct as even the large radius turnouts/points may seem to be the minimum acceptable standard and the necessity to shorten the wide (heal) end to keep crossovers to the correct distance may interfere with plain turnout looks

[sharris]

One of those words in bold was simple. I wish there had been some way to make that one word "double-extra-bold".

 

At the risk of aggravating you irritable bold syndrome

 

simple!

 

There, that should be highlighted enough for you! Now, if only HTML hadn't deprecated the 'flash' tag!*    

 

 

_{* thankfully they did!}

[Jeff Smith]

Comments on Peco:-

 

Check rails, except maybe the inside edge near the stock rails, are generally not shiny so assuming you paint your track plastic is fine however the shape (more like a piece of rail) and maybe length could be improved.

 

The last major range to be introduced by Peco was the US Code 83.  Does anyone recall the product introduction schedule, ie was it a progressive, if so over what time period? or was it all available at once?

 

I have never used or even seen any of these but there are No. 5, 6 and 8 Turnouts, No. 4 Wye, No. 6 Diamond Crossing and No. 7 Curved Turnouts.  In addition of course to Flexitrack.  The diagrams (not photos) on the Peco web site indicate rail-made check rails but pressed point blades.  Others here say the geometry is different (better?).  The diagrams do not indicate any gapping in the closure blades unless this is done at the hinges.

[47137]

Martin wonders why (he perceives) that my replies "are bad tempered". As one of those who has totally ignored one of the "bold points" in the original post, I think he knows very well why I get annoyed. Of course, what he is really trying to do, with his mates, is to make it look as if I am the villain here.

 

Well please refer back to the relevant phrases in the original post:

 

One of those words in bold was simple. I wish there had been some way to make that one word "double-extra-bold". Yet we have had the posting of goodness knows how many tables and illustrations of technical facts and figures, trotting out again and again the idea that OO modellers should be modelling a non existent narrower prototype gauge rather than the standard gauge that they are trying to portray, talking at length about changing point geometry entirely from the mass market commercial standard, discussing plain track when the topic is defined as pointwork, along with various other distractions and digressions along the way.

 

The topic, as I have said before, has become so unwieldy that anybody interested by the original post could easily be forgiven for abandoning any attempt to read it within the first few pages.

 

Now what could possibly have made me irritable at times?????

What this topic is showing, is that the simple improvements are very limited or aren't worthwhile. If you keep to the usual RTL turnout geometry then your trains will always appear to swerve when they run through turnouts, especially on a crossover. If you accept this, it may be worthwhile to do some surgery to (say) a Streamline point to tidy up the blades end (I do this) but using BH rail and its chairs and better timbering will sadly not help the big picture on its own and never will.

 

The biggest single improvement over RTL is by soldering up something with copperclad to fit the space available. It is great to have chairs with daylight underneath them and better timbering but as soon as you try to use RTL for pointwork more complicated than a single siding off a straight track then the detail is lost in the overall effect.

 

So if the topic appears to be rambling around, it may be because people are trying to make helpful suggestions to an impossible task.

 

- Richard.

[martin_wynne]

Just a reminder:

 

1. Joseph has said that he has started work on his new track.

 

2. All the indications are that DCC Concepts are working on new RTL track. Given their investment in a new stainless steel bullhead rail, it is very likely going to be bullhead. They have said that a new flexible track using it will be available soon. See:

 

 http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=30099&view=findpost&p=362921

 

So the best course of action would be to wait and see what happens.

 

The DCC Concepts rail is already available (from C&L).

 

Martin.

[Tiptonian]

Perhaps you should start again with a new topic on those lines?

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

 

 

 

Nooooooooooooooo!

[HeeleyBridge]

Go on, go on, go on, you know you will ..

 

Nurse - please bring my medication and the rubbing oil 

[gr.king]

 

Graeme, your problems with this topic have been entirely caused by the title you gave it:

 

 16.5mm traditional 00 gauge.  Classic steam era pointwork.

 

Which is the exact opposite of what you wanted to talk about.

 

........

 

Perhaps you should start again with a new topic on those lines?

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Well since we've already been all over the place with this topic, we may as well dsicuss that, and please note I'm being civil here. The title wasn't really the exact opposite of what I wanted us to talk about, and the inclusion of that word "simple" in the attempt at defining the subject matter surely gave some clue. Within the confines of the limited number of characters allowed in the title, how could it have been more appropriate and precise, given that it was not meant to rule out ideas on how scratchbuilt, better looking pointwork might be made in a speedy fashion? Anybody out there who has evolved a quicker and simpler method than most of us would have been a welcome contributor.

 

Nooooooooooooooo!

 

 

Go on, go on, go on, you know you will ..

 

Nurse - please bring my medication and the rubbing oil 

 

Well just supposing I could be bothered, would a ponderous title and topic definition such as the one below define the purposes of the thread sufficiently tightly and precisely? If so, how on earth does one attempt to condense the lengthy title into a subject heading for RMweb without loss of meaning!?

 

"OO 16.5mm gauge pointwork. Getting at least a basic, generic, standard gauge, steam-era chaired bullhead look, with better proportions for the timbers/sleepers than the current mass market ready made products.

 

A topic confined strictly to discussion and illustration of simple ideas, for those not wanting to study track in depth or spend many hours building it, specifically including:

 

1. Ideas on how to improve the look of existing ready made items by simple means, not including ballasting and painting/weathering, which are separate topics.

 

2. Suggestions, or preferably proven techniques, for the speediest construction of suitable pointwork from scratch or from low cost kits or parts.

 

3. An attempt to discover how many modellers would like to be able to buy ready to use pointwork based closely on existing Peco Streamline code 75 geometry, but with actual or simulated chaired bullhead appearance, and how many of those modellers would support an approach to Peco or another suitable manufacturer to press for pointwork including the necessary cosmetic features/changes.

 

Obviously, ideas for ready made points have to be concentrated mainly, or perhaps wholly, on the creation of a "generic" steam-era bullhead appearance. There is so much variation in older track standards that any pointwork modelled on a specific regional type, or a restricted period of history might be wonderful for a lucky few modellers and very unattractive to many others.

 

Genuine, positive contributions from interested parties are welcome. In view however of bitter experience of the wide and hotly contested range of views on track, and bearing in mind the vital need to keep this topic focussed and compact for the sake of average modellers wishing to read it quickly and gain from it, the following should be considered off-topic and therefore unwelcome or excluded:

 

1. Advocacy of model gauges other than 16.5mm, and suggestions that real gauges other than 4' 8 1/2" ought to be portrayed

2. Posts that simply seek to dispute the need, oppose, ridicule, suggest futility or predict failure of any of the three listed main objectives of this topic.

3. Non steam-era practices.

4. Modelling plain track. Suitable properly proportioned bullhead options already exist in the form of SMP and C & L ready to lay products as well as various build-it-yourself options.

5. Discussion relating to aspects of rail geometry that go well beyond anything that is necessary for a simple useable model. Gauge (obviously), check rail clearances and effective radius through a curved parts of a point cannot be ignored, but this is not the place to start explaining and discussing prototypical switch rail types and lengths, the precise modelling of real tiebars, the "need" to talk about crossing angles rather than point radius, blunt nosed crossings, rail cant etc. etc. etc. This is a topic for those simply wishing to achieve an overall better look. Track specialists wishing to discuss finer details of track have plenty of opportunity to do so elsewhere. The same applies to those wanting a ready made track system with wholly different geometry to the established Peco code 75 and code 100 ranges."

[Derekstuart]

Graham

 

I don't know Martin other than conversing with him in various forums and using his software. I would not say you are being bad tempered myself- I know how easy it is to be mis-understood on these forums.

 

Personally I think Martin's idea of re-imagining the prototype track at 4ft 1.5in is not one that I would follow and I think it is slightly less agreeable than trying to make 18.83 track look like 16.50 16.50 track look like 18.83. (It was the spell checker. Honestly guv)

 

But has it ever occurred to you that instead of arguing with you as you perceive, some people might just be making provocative statements and un-orthodox ideas deliberately to make people think about what they are doing?

 

Your OP made reference to the idea of ready to lay 00 track that looked more acceptable to you than the current offerings and by implication of this being a public forum, invited discussion.  All I have seen people do is precisely that. You cannot expect to discuss any subject in total isolation, it is inevitable that you will have comparisons drawn to alternatives. That is life.

 

If you hope to persuade a manufacturer to make these, you need to have ALL the answers. When they ask "why shouldn't we build 4ft 1.5in track using match sticks and I shaped channel" you need to answer that you have discussed alternatives and have dismissed them "because...."

 

But quite frankly I don't thin you are ever going to get to that point. If it was me, I would have conducted far more research by now, spoken to a few selected people and then asked for an appointment with the business development manager at one or two manufacturing companies by now. But therein lies the difference. I would do it, you would talk about it.

[HeeleyBridge]

As the man said "Never ask a question unless you know the answer".

 

Good luck with your quest Graeme.