16.5mm traditional OO gauge. Classic steam era pointwork.

[Derekstuart]

Too many potential P4 death star owners are arguing over whether the latest death star's have the right number of rivets and whether the death star carried a name plate in 1968 for them to do anything about it. In fact, some potential P4 death star owners have given up on the P4 death star owners society and gone S4.

 

That said, since it was realised the death star is 2mm too narrow in diameter, some in a break away rebellion have suggested that we just pretend that the original death star wasn't built to 4ft 8 1/2 but that we pretend it was built to 4ft 1 1/2 instead, which is easier (apparently) than trying to make the new death star look bigger than it actually is.

 

Meanwhile, some are hoping that the a manufacturer will start making death star's in a range of sizes and shapes, without the need to persuade them its a good idea. A committee was formed on how to best go about getting good looking steam era death star's with bullhead designs, but every time someone spoke to suggest how this could be done, the emperor had them shot as this was HIS death star forum and no one else.

 

Meanwhile, millions in Africa are starving, Germany is on the point of civil war, there are riots in Calais, our government have surrendered the Country, the economy is about to collapse far worse than we saw in 2008 and WORST OF ALL- my lager has got warm next to the heater whilst I typed this.

 

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

[Grovenor]

 

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!?

If you did start another topic all it could achieve would be to get all the same issues aired again, if people could be bothered. This has gone on for 46 pages and everything that can be usefully said on the topic has been said, mostly many times.

Why not just leave Joseph to get on with it.

Regards

[martin_wynne]

therefore unwelcome or excluded:

 

1. Advocacy of model gauges other than 16.5mm

 

It is interesting that you put that as no.1.

 

Despite the fact that no-one has ever suggested any gauge other than 16.5mm for 00 gauge commercial trackwork. In this topic or elsewhere.

 

If you are looking for hidden agendas, there is one of your own which was obvious from the start.

 

Martin.

[AndyID]

Personally, I blame Spiny Norman.

[nswgr1855]

This could have gone in "Handbuilt Track and Templot", it could have gone in "Layout and Track Design", and in the end if the powers that be consider that the location should change then I have no objection. Given that I'm hoping to include / invite ideas and practical demonstrations connected with the goal of better-looking-than-Peco, low-effort (or at least achievable for the reasonable modeller) pointwork for the classic (say 1910-1960) steam era, and that this doesn't have to be confined to handbuilding, then the general heading of Permanent Way seemed most appropriate to me.

 

With a lot of luck, the title, the topic description and the tags will make it clear that I'm aiming to create a topic here only for those who wish to be able to work in the traditional 16.5mm version of OO gauge. There are plenty of other places for discussions of other gauges or other versions of a gauge similar to OO, some established ones looking like thinly disguised publicity campaigns for more newly invented standards and some which appear to me to have hi-jacked a topic clearly entitled "OO gauge". Please respect the intended purpose of this topic and leave those genuinely interested in existing OO gauge and flangeway standards to discuss the intended subject matter of simple cosmetic improvement here without distracting and (intentionally?) disruptive "loaded questions" about other gauges or advocacy of other standards. I have by the way "cleared" this idea of a reserved topic with the webmaster himself.

 

In respect of the possibility of campaigning for more suitable ready made pointwork, it would also be helpful if we could avoid wasteful defeatist comments about the supposed "uselessness" of any generic track on account of the many different historic and regional track standards in the steam era, plus the limitless variations in layout to suit individual sites, things that cannot be duplicated in ready made systems of course. I'm painfully aware that track varied, as are many other interested modellers, but that doesn't mean that we can't have a limited range of points of generally improved appearance, and I wonder whether some of those who snipe at the idea of better-looking generic track simply don't want other modellers to enjoy access to a product that rivals the appearance of their own hand-built pieces of esoteric track.

 

For the moment, I'll throw the floor open to input from any interested party. Time permitting later on, I'll try to import one or two bits and pieces of my own from other locations to set the ball rolling if necessary.

 

Although not, in my view, going quite far enough since they don't address the jarring issue of too many timbers of far too small a size, these links do show that something can be done with the Peco product to make it less toy like. I suggest that much more can be done, either by us, or by Peco, and I do not believe that they would have to invest mega-money to do it. 

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/84892-bending-proprietary-turnouts/?p=1437234

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/75560-cosmetic-alterations-to-peco-code-75-points/

 

What is ' the traditional 16.5mm version of OO gauge'? Which standard are you referring to? I'm am sure you don't really know. Peco uses a check gauge of 15.2mm and a typical track gauge of 16.6mm, not 16.5mm. If I was going to manufacture a new range of RTR 00 I would use the following dimensions, A track gauge of 16.4mm to 16.5mm and a flangeway of 1.1mm to 1.2mm.  This way you do not get as much wheel drop compared to existing RTR and will mach up with existing RTR 00 track and wheels, no problems.

 

Cheers,

Terry Flynn.

[hayfield]

Terry

 

I tend to skip over long ramblings as they tend to be of little value, I probable miss the odd nugget though. As for what would be called traditional 16.5mm version of OO gauge   I would guess the likes of SMP, ABC, GEM, Formway and the original Peco Individualay being traditional. As they are all to 00 scale* and old, rather than the later Peco H0/00 mish mash.  Having said that you could add C+L and Exactoscale both have 00 scale* products

 

*  I know 00 is normally used in conjunction with a track gauge it also refers to a scale, if its not to 4 mm scale then its not 00 !!

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi John

 

With yourself and others who keep referring to products that were obsolete when I was in short trousers is not really helping. I knew what Graeme meant, 16.5mm gauge, not 16.2mm or what ever has been thought up recently.  As for classic steam age, I guessed that he was referring to bullhead rail on wooden sleepers. I am still amazed at some of the postings on here. Is it me or am I being too simplistic, a range of trackwork that has code 75 bullhead rail at a gauge of 16.5mm mounted on a plastic base that has representations of chairs and keys to hold said rail in place, set on sleepers (and timbers) spaced at the same scale as the trains on top.

 

My opinions.

Sleepers etc. might look a bit better is slightly shorter than scale as the track gauge is under scale.

All S&C to be based on proper crossing angles etc. (like Joseph is proposing) not a rehash of the Peco pointwork.

 

As for a standard, what about DOGA intermediate?

 

I am eagerly waiting to see the prototypes from Joseph, it sounds very exciting.

[gordon s]

If I had the cash to invest and could be assured of a decent return, then I would ask one or two people who were knowledgeable for guidance, but no more.  I would keep the whole thing under wraps until I was ready to launch as the last thing I would want is to give all my competitors notice of my intention.  I would decide what I wanted to build and go with it.  Investment requires leadership not consensus, otherwise nothing will move forward.

 

I take my hat off to Joseph as he is willing to invest in a new product and wish him every success in his venture.  

 

 

Graham

 

 

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.

 

 

Totally agree with you Derek.  By all means do your market research, but ultimately make your own decision and go with it.

 

 

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?????

 

Graeme, please do us all a favour and stop referring to hidden agendas and Martin's 'mates'.    

 

This is a subject well worth discussing, but inflammatory comments with no substance do nothing to move it forward.  

 

There are a wide range of views in this thread, which is why it is of such interest.  'Agrees' are given to posts to show you agree with the view given, nothing more.  They are not a vote of support as that is destructive and encourages sides. Once that happens, the sides become more and more entrenched and you will never reach a conclusion.

 

Please let's talk about the subject in question and forget about villains and conspiracies. 

[Buhar]

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.

Hi Graeme,

 

There are ideas elsewhere on this site for improving ready to lay track, but if you omit weathering and ballast, you're left with twiddling with the plastic.

 

Tips for hand-built track are plentiful, but I thought the objective of your opening post was more around the third element.  But the way you've worded that it's not a topic you're starting, it's a poll.  You've pretty much made made your mind up what you want, the question you're asking is who agrees with you.

 

A lot of the posts which have referred to geometry don't see Peco's code 75 as a great starting point and if you're going so far a new mouldings for sleepers it is a good chance to get better geometry and avoid the change of direction that puts me in mind of Blackpool's Wild Mouse ride.

 

On some layouts you probably could replace Code 75 piecemeal with points of different geometry.  You would have to trim track in places and crossovers would have to be done together, but working towards having WonderPoints on the visible section and Peco in the fiddle yard (or behind the gasworks, Martin) would make sense. 

 

There are some sensible ideas in this topic and just because it's not produced what you hoped for is not a reason to get cross or frustrated.

[hayfield]

Hi John

 

With yourself and others who keep referring to products that were obsolete when I was in short trousers is not really helping. I knew what Graeme meant, 16.5mm gauge, not 16.2mm or what ever has been thought up recently.  As for classic steam age, I guessed that he was referring to bullhead rail on wooden sleepers. I am still amazed at some of the postings on here. Is it me or am I being too simplistic, a range of trackwork that has code 75 bullhead rail at a gauge of 16.5mm mounted on a plastic base that has representations of chairs and keys to hold said rail in place, set on sleepers (and timbers) spaced at the same scale as the trains on top.

 

My opinions.

Sleepers etc. might look a bit better is slightly shorter than scale as the track gauge is under scale.

All S&C to be based on proper crossing angles etc. (like Joseph is proposing) not a rehash of the Peco pointwork.

 

As for a standard, what about DOGA intermediate?

 

I am eagerly waiting to see the prototypes from Joseph, it sounds very exciting.

 

Clive

 

Good morning, whilst you may not have been around years ago, in many peoples mind 00 gauge track was to 4 mm scale in the past and whilst SMP was around years ago, it still is and seems that most want ready to have track that is compatible withboth SMP, and the more modern competitors of C+L & Exactoscale bullhead track

 

Who (other than some non track builders ) are bringing 00sf/4sf into the thread, its a track builders gauge not ready to lay. Granted some may wish for finer flangeways than DOGA intermediate, but that's a different issue. With careful design 00 gauge track to DOGA intermediate standard  or earlier similar standard  can look terrific, yes there are alternatives but this thread is all about 00 gauge. We are both hostages to the history of 00 gauge and the recipients of ever increasing better built RTR stock, both of which need to be taken into consideration.

 

The biggest issue as I can see it is that should the design follow Peco's footprint so there is ease of replacing existing trackwork, or go the whole hog and try and copy the prototype with a different footprint

[hayfield]

Totally agree with you Derek.  By all means do your market research, but ultimately make your own decision and go with it.

 

 

 

Graeme, please do us all a favour and stop referring to hidden agendas and Martin's 'mates'.    

 

This is a subject well worth discussing, but inflammatory comments with no substance do nothing to move it forward.  

 

There are a wide range of views in this thread, which is why it is of such interest.  'Agrees' are given to posts to show you agree with the view given, nothing more.  They are not a vote of support as that is destructive and encourages sides. Once that happens, the sides become more and more entrenched and you will never reach a conclusion.

 

Please let's talk about the subject in question and forget about villains and conspiracies. 

 

 

Gordon

 

Well said, hopefully you may be listened to and we can get back to the main point or should it be turnout.

[sharris]

 I would keep the whole thing under wraps until I was ready to launch as the last thing I would want is to give all my competitors notice of my intention. 

 

 

But if there were competitors in the marketplace for realistic looking ready to lay UK 00 pointwork* this discussion might not be happening!

 

_{* specifically, as plain track is already catered for.}

[coachmann]

Not sure if I have lost something of the translation, but there seem to be two camps looking for Ready-to-Lay track here. 

 

1)  Those who would be happy with a Peco-style point that has chairs.

2)  Those who want a new design system that more truly represents British steam-era bullhead points.

 

If this is the case then it would be simpler if people mentioned whether they were after 1 or 2. I am not trying to steer anything here....Merely trying to see the light. 

[martin_wynne]

and others who keep referring to products that were obsolete when I was in short trousers is not really helping.

As for a standard, what about DOGA intermediate?

 

Hi Clive,

 

The products may have gone the same way as your short trousers, but the standard hasn't. It's still current and used by a great many 00 modellers when building track. And yes, you guessed it, it is now called DOGA Intermediate:

 

 http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/commercialtrack.htm

 

From which page you may notice:

 

Gauge 16.5mm

 

Sleepers 32mm long

 

Sleepers 3.3mm wide

 

Sleepers spaced at 10mm centres

 

i.e. the very same dimensions adopted 70 years ago. That's probably even before your short trousers. It is mine.

 

And still current.

 

My guess is that when Graeme started this topic about "traditional 00 Gauge" he didn't actually know that such a thing existed. Which is probably true for a generation of modellers brought up on Peco Streamline. 

 

Martin.

[2750Papyrus]

Not sure if I have lost something of the translation, but there seem to be two camps looking for Ready-to-Lay track here. 

 

1)  Those who would be happy with a Peco-style point that has chairs.

2)  Those who want a new design system that more truly represents British steam-era bullhead points.

 

If this is the case then it would be simpler if people mentioned whether they were after 1 or 2. I am not trying to steer anything here....Merely trying to see the light. 

 

Thanks for trying to simplify this thread but I fear many of us want 1.n!

 

The Railway Modeller used to advertise itself as "for the average modeller".  I would suggest that the average 4mm modeller uses predominantly RTR locomotives and stock, which have improved to a standard achieved only by expert modellers 30 years ago, but is running them on RTL trackwork which hasn't, in general, improved to the same extent.  Hence many such modellers would welcome a better RTL track ("better than average" modellers may well choose to build their own.) 

 

For steam era modellers, this implies the use of bullhead track.  Using the same geometry as Streamline would permit simple replacement on existing layouts.  A revised geometry would help improve the realism of the "average modeller's" layout, if possibly, increasing the problems of space constraints. 

 

I don't know which approach would sell better and this is probably the driver if the concept is to be commercially viable.  However, if the adoption of BH rail requires new mould tools, it would seem sensible to make additional changes such as sleeper dimensions and spacing to match existing RTL track such as SMP or C&L.

 

So I am probably somewhere around 1.5!  Sorry!

[gr.king]

For belated clarity, "traditional OO gauge" was meant to refer to exactly what it says in the phrase, i.e. the gauge, and inevitably associated with that the "not ultra fine flangeways" that characterise the many and varied forms of "traditional OO". The purpose of the phrase was to make clear, as Clive immediately realised, that 16.2 with fine flangways was not the topic for discussion.

 

The sleeper bases are an altogether different matter. The commercial offerings have varied so much over the years that it is impossible to choose the most traditional version. I certainly wasn't implying that the pre-determined theme should be BRMSB's 10mm pitch (and so on), which as you will have deduced, I do not favour because it isn't sufficiently proportionate to the gauge.

[hayfield]

Not sure if I have lost something of the translation, but there seem to be two camps looking for Ready-to-Lay track here. 

 

1)  Those who would be happy with a Peco-style point that has chairs.

2)  Those who want a new design system that more truly represents British steam-era bullhead points.

 

If this is the case then it would be simpler if people mentioned whether they were after 1 or 2. I am not trying to steer anything here....Merely trying to see the light. 

 

Coachman

 

Well summed up though I guess as added by Papyurs,1 may split into those happy with flatbottom rail others wanting bullhead

 

For belated clarity, "traditional OO gauge" was meant to refer to exactly what it says in the phrase, i.e. the gauge, and inevitably associated with that the "not ultra fine flangeways" that characterise the many and varied forms of "traditional OO". The purpose of the phrase was to make clear, as Clive immediately realised, that 16.2 with fine flangways was not the topic for discussion.

 

The sleeper bases are an altogether different matter. The commercial offerings have varied so much over the years that it is impossible to choose the most traditional version. I certainly wasn't implying that the pre-determined theme should be BRMSB's 10mm pitch (and so on), which as you will have deduced, I do not favour because it isn't sufficiently proportionate to the gauge.

 

Why did anyone bring 16.2 into it at all as you clearly stated 16.5 and traditional 00, but as you also included pointwork I and others naturally assumed it would be compatible with one or more existing products. Thank you for you clear reply

[martin_wynne]

Why did anyone bring 16.2 into it at all

 

Hi John,

 

No-one did. Other than Graeme himself.

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

Hi John,

 

No-one did. Other than Graeme himself.

 

Martin.

 

 

I will not mention the obvious, but still its great that so many are interested in turnouts that look better, and are keen to get this part of our hobby out of the doldrums and to a level of detail (hopefully) that we enjoy with rolling stock. The test will be will they buy them

[roythebus]

It ought to be possible to design and make Peco-compatibie pointwork using Templot and producing them commercially. Would that answer all the questions? At least it would get rid of the constant curve of Peco points.

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Clive,

 

The products may have gone the same way as your short trousers, but the standard hasn't. It's still current and used by a great many 00 modellers when building track. And yes, you guessed it, it is now called DOGA Intermediate:

 

 http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/commercialtrack.htm

 

From which page you may notice:

 

Gauge 16.5mm

 

Sleepers 32mm long

 

Sleepers 3.3mm wide

 

Sleepers spaced at 10mm centres

 

i.e. the very same dimensions adopted 70 years ago. That's probably even before your short trousers. It is mine.

 

And still current.

 

My guess is that when Graeme started this topic about "traditional 00 Gauge" he didn't actually know that such a thing existed. Which is probably true for a generation of modellers brought up on Peco Streamline. 

 

Martin.

Woo there Martin

 

For one I did not refer to the DOGA intermediate standard or what ever it is historically based on as being obsolete, so please no twisting what I was saying.

 

I was referring to all the old types of track that have for many decades not been made. Ring Ring

 

"Hello is that Mr Bachmann? When you brought Graham Farish did you buy the Fromaway tools?"

 

I then suggested a contemporary standard, in a completely different paragraph. 

[Clive Mortimore]

Clive

 

Good morning, whilst you may not have been around years ago, in many peoples mind 00 gauge track was to 4 mm scale in the past and whilst SMP was around years ago, it still is and seems that most want ready to have track that is compatible withboth SMP, and the more modern competitors of C+L & Exactoscale bullhead track

 

Who (other than some non track builders ) are bringing 00sf/4sf into the thread, its a track builders gauge not ready to lay. Granted some may wish for finer flangeways than DOGA intermediate, but that's a different issue. With careful design 00 gauge track to DOGA intermediate standard  or earlier similar standard  can look terrific, yes there are alternatives but this thread is all about 00 gauge. We are both hostages to the history of 00 gauge and the recipients of ever increasing better built RTR stock, both of which need to be taken into consideration.

 

The biggest issue as I can see it is that should the design follow Peco's footprint so there is ease of replacing existing trackwork, or go the whole hog and try and copy the prototype with a different footprint

 

So why are the 00-SF brigade picking holes in the post of those of us who do not build 00-SF?

 

If you are not interested in ready to use track and points then why keep posting on here?

[Semi Fast]

I intend building my own to 4-sf, but I would also buy an "improved 00". They're not mutually exclusive- just horses for courses.

[sp1]

 

So why are the 00-SF brigade picking holes in the post of those of us who do not build 00-SF?

 

If you are not interested in ready to use track and points then why keep posting on here?

Clive

I haven't posted on this thread so far, but have been following with great interest. I build to 00-SF and it does work. However, while building track I am amassing ever growing amounts of stock. While I can build turnouts at the rate of one in an afternoon my time is limited- if a ready to lay alternative to Peco came along (and yes I know about Marcway etc) I would be on it like a shot. My grandson wants to see 'his' trains run, so I almost gave in, then I looked at it again....nah- I'll keep building, but if something comes along that matches SMP or C&L that'll do - both flexi tracks look like they what they are supposed to be in my eyes- I could put up with whatever geometry they represent......

Edit to add: forgot to say - what would be of interest is chaired bullhead track (points/ turnouts) to match currently available flexi..

[sharris]

If you are not interested in ready to use track and points then why keep posting on here?

I'm actually building my own track in EM, but it's a relatively modest set-up compared to some on here. Why am I interested in visually realistic ready to lay 00? Because I understand that for many, the only solution is ready to lay, or it would never get done. And when visiting exhibitions I like to see well done layouts whatever gauge variant of 4mm scale is used.