16.5mm traditional OO gauge. Classic steam era pointwork.

[Joseph_Pestell]

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79416-poll-ready-to-lay-oo-track-and-pointwork/page-57&do=findComment&comment=2135258

 

Link to my previous thread on this subject. I have decided to commission CAD work on this with a view to product launch late 2016.

[gr.king]

I think if the user has to do that much chopping, they may as well start from scratch.

I can see how you might think that, but Graham Nicholas (4479) clearly didn't think it easier to build bespoke formations from scratch rather than adapt pieces of Peco (with built in standards) in order to create Grantham.

 

Some of the loco and coach adaptations I've carried out have been dismissed by some as harder than building from scratch, but that is not what I find to be the case.

[Junctionmad]

Regarding C&L also selling Peco, some people mix SMP, C&L or Exactoscale flexible track with Peco Code 75 points. A proportion of the C&L track and Exactoscale track base that they sell will end up with Peco points, so they may as well sell you the points as well. Of course, this is far from ideal, but in my opinion, a better compromise for OO than just Peco Code 75. Of my two small layouts, the larger uses Marcway points with SMP flexible track. The smaller one originally used Hornby, but now uses Peco Code 75 points with SMP flexible track salvaged from an abortive attempt at laying the larger layout. If I were to do another layout, the combination of Peco with SMP would certainly be considered. On the other hand, if this thread were to have a positive result, I would much rather buy the better looking alternative points.

Really , I'd be surprised that people are mixing PECO like this , some people are obviously building scenic areas from bull head while the fiddle yard etc are PECO but I find visually the mix of bullhead and PECO turnouts to be more visually disconcerting, then if the same thing was all constructed from PECO

 

I suspect C & L are offering PECO because it's a popular track , and it's good business for Pete.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Really , I'd be surprised that people are mixing PECO like this , some people are obviously building scenic areas from bull head while the fiddle yard etc are PECO but I find visually the mix of bullhead and PECO turnouts to be more visually disconcerting, then if the same thing was all constructed from PECO

 

I suspect C & L are offering PECO because it's a popular track , and it's good business for Pete.

 

Quite a few people, not least on RMWeb, using Peco 75 or Peco 83 with bullhead OO flexi-track. It works better than might at first be expected but like you I find it jars visually.

[Joseph_Pestell]

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79416-poll-ready-to-lay-oo-track-and-pointwork/page-57&do=findComment&comment=2135258

 

Link to my previous thread on this subject. I have decided to commission CAD work on this with a view to product launch late 2016.

 

Perhaps I should have put something in CAPITALS to get more response? I might start a completely new thread.

[MikeTrice]

Thanks Joseph, just noticed it before catching up on this thread. It just goes to prove that RELEVANT discussion on this topic has not been wasted.

[Dominion]

I can see how you might think that, but Graham Nicholas (4479) clearly didn't think it easier to build bespoke formations from scratch rather than adapt pieces of Peco (with built in standards) in order to create Grantham.

 

Some of the loco and coach adaptations I've carried out have been dismissed by some as harder than building from scratch, but that is not what I find to be the case.

 

Joseph, I agree with Graeme on this one.  Cutting back proprietary turnouts to get the correct 6 foot spacing still provides the modeler the confidence that the V or K crossing and switch blades will function well, and allow good running.  So I think that is an "easier" or perhaps less intimidating adaptation than building from scratch as the complex functional requirements are intact. This is analogous in fact to using Graeme's or others resin adaptations on a proprietary chassis as it still allows the confidence that the result of the effort will run well.

 

I can see that your modular crossing and switch plan would also work extremely well and provide many possible configurations and flexibility. And if they can be produced I am sure I would happily buy them and adapt them for odd configurations.  Tom

[Ravenser]

Track centres: Easy enough isn't it? The pointwork ideally needs to include enough rail and base to allow for 50mm track centres with a planned-in trimming facility to reduce centres to as little as say 44mm if desired. A contingency plan for trimming back even more severely if necessary would be sensible too, for those wishing to emulate the work of (say) 4479 by building a double scissors at narrow centres.

 

 

 

In principle I'd be entirely supportive of this. In practice I'm not sure how this would actually work

[Ravenser]

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79416-poll-ready-to-lay-oo-track-and-pointwork/page-57&do=findComment&comment=2135258

 

Link to my previous thread on this subject. I have decided to commission CAD work on this with a view to product launch late 2016.

 

We will watch with considerable interest

[Dominion]

Very definitely ON TOPIC, here are my suggested specifications for three possible levels of improvement on the current ready-to-use Peco code 75 offering. I've tried in each case to address the fifteen or so key questions that were suggested a few pages back. I DON'T EXPECT EVERYBODY TO AGREE THAT I'VE GOT THIS RIGHT, NOR AM I ASKING TO ENTER INTO HEATED DEBATE ABOUT THE SPECIFICATIONS.

 

Please put YOUR ideas forward if you think you have better proposals, don't just snipe at my ideas. I'd suggest we all try to remember that although the fixed objective is for better track to suit the originally stated style and era, compromise on the purity of some features will almost certainly have to be accepted if any maker is to be induced to co-operate.

 

Possible Specifications for new points / track to better suit British steam era modelling, 1920-1960, 16.5mm OO gauge.

 

1. "Bronze Specification". Not the ideal but based on the assumption that changes confined almost completely to the moulded base would be the least expensive and most palatable for an existing manufacturer such as Peco to contemplate. Also devised with a view to creating an appearance that with a little user care can be made to be compatible with both SMP type finescale bullhead track AND the existing form of Peco OO code 75 flat-bottomed:

 

Existing rail parts in bright nickel silver code 75 all re-used. Moulded base still rigid and of current thickness but leaving the option for the user to cut selected webs allowing the points to flex to the same degree possible with the current product. Base preferably moulded in a greyish brown plastic as a suitable portrayal of either grubby weathered timbers or dusty and corroded ferrous fittings. Rail clips portrayed as now, but a matching pack of false chairs to be offered, designed to fit perfectly over the rail clips (at least on the outside face of the rail), for those seeking to give the track a pseudo-bullhead appearance. Electrofrog only, with built-in connecting wire. Existing Peco check rail clearances and overall dimensions/geometry as per the existing Peco medium and large radius straight points.

 

TIMBER WIDTHS REVISED TO 3.5mm, PITCHED AT AVERAGE 8mm CENTRES (adjusted to allow existing crossing position, insulating breaks, blade pivots and tie bar location to continue without redesign / re-tooling) EACH TIMBER TO BE APPROX 1 TO 1.5mm LONGER THAN CORRESPONDING TIMBERS IN THE CURRENT DESIGN, i.e. to be a true match for plain track with sleepers 30.5 to 31mm long.

 

Pressed blades to continue if provision of real rail would render the alteration to production prohibitively expensive. Removable over-centre spring to continue. Check rails still to be moulded plastic - at least they don't polish up bright when the track is cleaned! Any "slimming down" or other refinement of appearance in the switch/tie bar area that does not compromise strength would be welcome.

 

 

2. "Silver Specification"

 

Still code 75 FB NS rail (nickel silver takes solder easily) and again a preferably grey/brown moulded base with optional add-on false chairs for adaptation to BH appearance, and facility for cutting webs to permit flexing. Electrofrog only, with connecting wire. Probably OO-BF check rail clearances. Geometry either as now OR the nearest matching true forms such as A5 for the medium point.

 

Timber dimensions as for the bronze spec, with a view to preserving suitability for modellers of the more modern railway. Real rail very much preferred for blades, along with a removable over centre spring and refined switch/tie bar appearance. Check rails still moulded, but thought given to design in this area to allow users to cut out the plastic check rails and substitute metal if desired.

 

3. " Gold Specification"

Code 65 or 75 bullhead NS rail in moulded true chairs with visible clearance between rail foot and base webs. Electrofrog only, with connecting wire. OO-BF, true point geometries including some close to existing Peco "medium" and "large" versions.

Possibly metal check and wing rails, but these parts of the rails (at least) to be of "track colour", either by virtue of being made in a different metal or by virtue of a dense and hard wearing electro-chemical treatment. Loss of this through abrasion might be reduced by setting the check rails say 5 thou low and by machining 5 thou of the top of each wing-rail portion during manufacture.

Strong base moulded in grey-brown with timbers 4mm wide pitched at nominal 9mm centres, lengths to match perfectly with plain track sleepers 31.5 to 32 mm long. Base (and all other aspects of design) to be produced with initially rigid characteristics but with built-in facility for user to flex the point with minimum preparation.

Real rail blades, refined switch and tie bar appearance, removable over centre spring or other removable latching.

Built in facility for trimming to allow those points that would ordinarily give say 50mm rail centres when paired to instead give as little as 44mm centres or to form part of a double scissors with more user adaptation.

 

I like your 3 different bundles of options Graeme.

Any of the 3 options would be a useful addition to what is available today.

I think Joseph's description in his thread has many of the characteristics of your gold specification if I understand correctly and I would love for that to be successful, and would support it.

 

On your bronze and silver option bundles, I wonder if there would be a choice to base the rail geometry on Peco's code 83 offering.  One of the earlier posters in this thread suggested the same thing earlier and I think it could be an interesting alternative to basing it on Pecos code 75 range.  Does anyone have one of their code 83 products handy to measure the flange ways gaps or check span to see if that is the same as code 75/code100 or different?  Tom

[Ravenser]

Really , I'd be surprised that people are mixing PECO like this , some people are obviously building scenic areas from bull head while the fiddle yard etc are PECO but I find visually the mix of bullhead and PECO turnouts to be more visually disconcerting, then if the same thing was all constructed from PECO

 

I suspect C & L are offering PECO because it's a popular track , and it's good business for Pete.

 

C+L's own statement on why is here:

 

http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=blog/article&article_id=51

 

Essentially it allows them to expand their product range and sales turnover without having to invest large sums in additional tooling and large production runs

[Ravenser]

Very definitely ON TOPIC, here are my suggested specifications for three possible levels of improvement on the current ready-to-use Peco code 75 offering. I've tried in each case to address the fifteen or so key questions that were suggested a few pages back. I DON'T EXPECT EVERYBODY TO AGREE THAT I'VE GOT THIS RIGHT, NOR AM I ASKING TO ENTER INTO HEATED DEBATE ABOUT THE SPECIFICATIONS.

 

Please put YOUR ideas forward if you think you have better proposals, don't just snipe at my ideas. I'd suggest we all try to remember that although the fixed objective is for better track to suit the originally stated style and era, compromise on the purity of some features will almost certainly have to be accepted if any maker is to be induced to co-operate.

 

Possible Specifications for new points / track to better suit British steam era modelling, 1920-1960, 16.5mm OO gauge.

 

1. "Bronze Specification". Not the ideal but based on the assumption that changes confined almost completely to the moulded base would be the least expensive and most palatable for an existing manufacturer such as Peco to contemplate. Also devised with a view to creating an appearance that with a little user care can be made to be compatible with both SMP type finescale bullhead track AND the existing form of Peco OO code 75 flat-bottomed:

 

Existing rail parts in bright nickel silver code 75 all re-used. Moulded base still rigid and of current thickness but leaving the option for the user to cut selected webs allowing the points to flex to the same degree possible with the current product. Base preferably moulded in a greyish brown plastic as a suitable portrayal of either grubby weathered timbers or dusty and corroded ferrous fittings. Rail clips portrayed as now, but a matching pack of false chairs to be offered, designed to fit perfectly over the rail clips (at least on the outside face of the rail), for those seeking to give the track a pseudo-bullhead appearance. Electrofrog only, with built-in connecting wire. Existing Peco check rail clearances and overall dimensions/geometry as per the existing Peco medium and large radius straight points.

 

TIMBER WIDTHS REVISED TO 3.5mm, PITCHED AT AVERAGE 8mm CENTRES (adjusted to allow existing crossing position, insulating breaks, blade pivots and tie bar location to continue without redesign / re-tooling) EACH TIMBER TO BE APPROX 1 TO 1.5mm LONGER THAN CORRESPONDING TIMBERS IN THE CURRENT DESIGN, i.e. to be a true match for plain track with sleepers 30.5 to 31mm long.

 

Pressed blades to continue if provision of real rail would render the alteration to production prohibitively expensive. Removable over-centre spring to continue. Check rails still to be moulded plastic - at least they don't polish up bright when the track is cleaned! Any "slimming down" or other refinement of appearance in the switch/tie bar area that does not compromise strength would be welcome.

 

 

2. "Silver Specification"

 

Still code 75 FB NS rail (nickel silver takes solder easily) and again a preferably grey/brown moulded base with optional add-on false chairs for adaptation to BH appearance, and facility for cutting webs to permit flexing. Electrofrog only, with connecting wire. Probably OO-BF check rail clearances. Geometry either as now OR the nearest matching true forms such as A5 for the medium point.

 

Timber dimensions as for the bronze spec, with a view to preserving suitability for modellers of the more modern railway. Real rail very much preferred for blades, along with a removable over centre spring and refined switch/tie bar appearance. Check rails still moulded, but thought given to design in this area to allow users to cut out the plastic check rails and substitute metal if desired.

 

3. " Gold Specification"

Code 65 or 75 bullhead NS rail in moulded true chairs with visible clearance between rail foot and base webs. Electrofrog only, with connecting wire. OO-BF, true point geometries including some close to existing Peco "medium" and "large" versions.

Possibly metal check and wing rails, but these parts of the rails (at least) to be of "track colour", either by virtue of being made in a different metal or by virtue of a dense and hard wearing electro-chemical treatment. Loss of this through abrasion might be reduced by setting the check rails say 5 thou low and by machining 5 thou of the top of each wing-rail portion during manufacture.

Strong base moulded in grey-brown with timbers 4mm wide pitched at nominal 9mm centres, lengths to match perfectly with plain track sleepers 31.5 to 32 mm long. Base (and all other aspects of design) to be produced with initially rigid characteristics but with built-in facility for user to flex the point with minimum preparation.

Real rail blades, refined switch and tie bar appearance, removable over centre spring or other removable latching.

Built in facility for trimming to allow those points that would ordinarily give say 50mm rail centres when paired to instead give as little as 44mm centres or to form part of a double scissors with more user adaptation.

 

Silver spec please.

 

As far as track standards are concerned , I suspect the folk determinedly clinging to pre2000 Hornby steamroller wheels are not going to be part of the market for this product anyway 

[Clive Mortimore]

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79416-poll-ready-to-lay-oo-track-and-pointwork/page-57&do=findComment&comment=2135258

 

Link to my previous thread on this subject. I have decided to commission CAD work on this with a view to product launch late 2016.

How about a big hand to Joseph.  For those who have not clicked on the link this is what he has stated he is doing

 

 

"I will post this here and then try to post a link on GrKing's more recent thread on the same subject.

 

I am now in a position to pay for CAD work to be done to develop the first items in a range of OO pointwork. Once these have been produced as prototypes by way of 3D printing and we have been able to assess the costing of other aspects (e.g. machining of blades, fabrication of crossings), we should be in a position to commission tooling for injection moulding. That may need further finance by way of crowdfunding but I don't think it sensible or fair to start the crowdfunding until people have a much clearer understanding of what the product will look like. The crowdfunding proposal will also set out the business plan, including distribution.

 

The key technical aspects, derived from comments on both threads, will be:

a. compatibility with modern ready-to-run OO locos and rolling stock;

b. appropriately sized sleepering on both plain track and pointwork;

c. compatibility with DCC;

d. code 75 bullhead rail;

e. switches made from rail and not hinged.

 

The first phase launch would include:

#6 turnouts (L & R)

#6 crossovers (L & R)

#6 diamond crossing - straight for trailing lead to goods yard

#6 single slip

Sleeper base moulded in 60' panels (or 2 half panels)

 

The second phase will include:

#8 turnouts (L & R)

#8 crossovers (L & R)

#8 double-junctions (L & R) - which as some will guess involves curved diamonds

#6 double slip

 

I still have a "day job" so I will try not to be unrealistic as to timescale. With a following wind, I would hope to have the prototypes available in late Spring with a view to launch in Autumn."

 

I for one am planning a new layout in Autumn.

[Dominion]

I looked a bit more at the Peco code 83 offerings in case Graeme's bronze or silver option could leverage those instead of code 75.

 

Pros are that there is a number 6 and number 8 frog  that are straight after the frog, so much less defection in a crossover.

Electrofrog available.

There is also a number 7 curved turnout. (And also a number 5, and a 4Y but they be shorter than in Graeme's suggestion)

And they all have metal check rails.

 

However, I also seem to remember there may be a lot of plastic in the frog and wing rail gaps that I for one would not want. I don't know if that is something that could be omitted if the plastic was hypothetically being retooled anyway for UK sleeper spacing. 

Also no slips available.

 

I would also love to know the flange way dimension.  Tom

[Satan's Goldfish]

Silver spec please.

 

As far as track standards are concerned , I suspect the folk determinedly clinging to pre2000 Hornby steamroller wheels are not going to be part of the market for this product anyway

 

Yes and no. I have a lot of pizza cutters, it's just taking a long time to replace them all to the point that stock that won't get taken to shows won't get changed. It would still be nice to be able to use them on better 00 code 100 at home though.

[Ravenser]

Yes and no. I have a lot of pizza cutters, it's just taking a long time to replace them all to the point that stock that won't get taken to shows won't get changed. It would still be nice to be able to use them on better 00 code 100 at home though.

 

 

Noted - but Lima wheels will go through traditional "Scale" OO track (BRMSB OO/ DOGA Intermediate) as the back to back is 14.5mm. The problem with Lima is the flange depth , and that will be an issue with any code 75 track - nothing is solved by making the flangeway gap wider than 1.25mm.

 

Unless you're running old Hornby - and they weren't exactly strong modern image contenders in the 90s - you should be ok

[gr.king]

Looks like Joseph may be some way ahead of the game here, and I certainly have a lot of reading and thinking to do if I'm to bring my thinking up to date with this new position. If there's a genuine possibility of getting an affordable, ready assembled (or extremely user-friendly self-assembly) range of bullhead finescale points out of Joseph's proposals, it might be wastefully competitive and ultimately counter productive to try to persuade Peco to produce an upgrade not quite so faithful to the prototype but capable of eroding the market for the "good stuff".

 

Saving the strategic thinking for another time, here are one or two things that cropped up in my mind today:

 

Firstly, I was thinking about Ravenser's mention of a 1.27mm flangeway. Now when I was building a fair number of copperclad points for my layout back in the 1990s, I did at one stage (after finally realising the unavoidable need for uniform BTB settings on stock) try using my turned brass code 65/75 roller gauges (from SMP I believe) to set the check rail clearances but found that the results were impossibly tight and unforgiving for some of my stock. By pure trial and error, with no knowledge of the official BRMSB / NMRA / OO-BF dimesions, I arrived at a successful compromise, a slacker setting, which conveniently turned out to be the thickness of a piece of copperclad paxolin sleeper strip. I've just been up to the loft to check again that a piece of the same PCB strip is indeed a tight fit in the flangeways of the "best" pieces of pointwork that I built, and I've measured the thickness with a digital Vernier caliper. The reading, as usual, won't settle perfectly but it is somewhere between 1.20 and 1.25mm. Loads of RTR models with nothing more that a quick check and set up to be just slightly slack on brass BTB gauge (also from SMP I suspect, but I could be wrong)run perfectly through the pointwork, so OO-BF or a little finer is certainly workable with modern (and some not so modern) RTR models.

 

I don't dispute Martin W's precise mathematical analysis of track standards, especially flangeway and crossing dimensions, in fact I admire the depth of analysis. I haven't found it necessary however to go into such detail in order to get running that satisfies me. I suspect many others can get satisfactory running without extreme mathematical rigour and ultra finescale standards too. I'm not quite sure that it is true to say that OO-BF, or whatever my effective standard might be has to be abandoned on sections of the layout (fiddle yards etc) on which Peco turnouts are used. My fiddle yard approaches use Peco code 75 medium radius points in most places, largely without trouble. If a user of Peco really wanted to refine the flangeway standards to exactly match a tighter standard it could of course be done, for fairly minimal effort, by gluing slips of plastic to the faces of the moulded check rails and possibly soldering shims to faces of the wing rails.

 

Peco code 83 overall geometry for something along the lines of the hypothetical silver and gold standards? Maybe a good idea, but I'd be reluctant to see something as handy as the present Peco medium radius approximation to a 3ft turnout disappear from the options.

 

Finally, for those with a strong stomach, some plan-view photographs of the last pieces of pointwork that I built for the scenic section of my loft layout. The curve through the point leading into the single slip from the bay platform road (top right platform) looks a bit severe in plan view, but not in normal views. It is not, to my mind, alarmingly "gas-works sidings" standard in appearance.Nothing here is tighter than 3 foot radius and although the tie-bar arrangements are not cosmetically great they have never broken loose from the blades, they include frog switching contacts and even incorporate simple over-centre springs to latch the points, operation being by nothing more complex than a push-pull rod under the baseboard. I'm afraid the pictures aren't clear enough to stand up to much enlargement.

 

[Ben Alder]

Really , I'd be surprised that people are mixing PECO like this , some people are obviously building scenic areas from bull head while the fiddle yard etc are PECO but I find visually the mix of bullhead and PECO turnouts to be more visually disconcerting, then if the same thing was all constructed from PECO

 

I suspect C & L are offering PECO because it's a popular track , and it's good business for Pete.

 

The two can be combined with passable results - here is a shot of my modified Peco pointwork with added chairs. Not an ideal, but as good as it gets in a reasonably practical way of things. I must say that this thread does at last seem to be managing to discuss the matter in hand in a positive manner - most attempts at this type of thing end up with the usual rancours, which does our image, and any hoped for improvements, no good at all. The most likely immediate step forward does appear to be in the 3D field and perhaps some success here might make an established manufacturer take more notice of what is a major failing in the ever improving standard of commercial models.

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

Nice trackwork, Grahame.

[steve45]

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79416-poll-ready-to-lay-oo-track-and-pointwork/page-57&do=findComment&comment=2135258

 

Link to my previous thread on this subject. I have decided to commission CAD work on this with a view to product launch late 2016.

This has just delayed the start of my next layout even though the boards have been built!

 

Can you keep us regularly up to date with progress and release track plans as soon as possible please?

 

Many thanks

 

Steve

[Joseph_Pestell]

This has just delayed the start of my next layout even though the boards have been built!

 

Can you keep us regularly up to date with progress and release track plans as soon as possible please?

 

Many thanks

 

Steve

 

Hi Steve,

 

No pressure then.

 

If you go on to Templot, Martin Wynne's superb free software, you can print out a #6 point template (etc.). I'm not saying that what will be produced will be an exact match because we are looking to incorporate a few visual tricks to compensate for the narrow gauge. But in terms of the overall dimensions for layout planning, it should serve you well enough.

 

Joseph

[steve45]

Hi Steve,

 

No pressure then.

 

If you go on to Templot, Martin Wynne's superb free software, you can print out a #6 point template (etc.). I'm not saying that what will be produced will be an exact match because we are looking to incorporate a few visual tricks to compensate for the narrow gauge. But in terms of the overall dimensions for layout planning, it should serve you well enough.

 

Joseph

Hi Joseph,

 

Sorry, I came over as being impatient, I'm just so frustrated by the existing situation of not being able to source 00 track at a price I can afford, I know I don't have the skills having attempted copper clad and flatbottom rail 30 years ago and I can't afford the other options, so I'm very hopeful that your proposed development is a success.

 

I wish you good luck and you can count on my support

 

Steve

[Clive Mortimore]

The two can be combined with passable results - here is a shot of my modified Peco pointwork with added chairs. Not an ideal, but as good as it gets in a reasonably practical way of things. I must say that this thread does at last seem to be managing to discuss the matter in hand in a positive manner - most attempts at this type of thing end up with the usual rancours, which does our image, and any hoped for improvements, no good at all. The most likely immediate step forward does appear to be in the 3D field and perhaps some success here might make an established manufacturer take more notice of what is a major failing in the ever improving standard of commercial models.

 

IMG_0427-crop.JPG

Hi Ben

 

I like what you have done. Other people on this thread have also achieved results that are view-able. If Joseph's hard work does pay off wouldn't it be great if on our next layouts we didn't have to make a compromise with altering (or in my case doing nothing) commercially available H0 point work to fit with our odd British modelling gauge of 00.  

[Ben Alder]

Thanks, I did this after a suggestion by uax6, and I am glad I listened to him. It was easy enough to do, if a bit repetitive, but the immediate visual results were an encouragement to keep going. We do seem to be on the verge of a start in these matters and I hope it takes off. The only problem for me is that I might be encouraged by all this to think about another layout

[DCB]

The two can be combined with passable results - here is a shot of my modified Peco pointwork with added chairs. Not an ideal, but as good as it gets in a reasonably practical way of things. I must say that this thread does at last seem to be managing to discuss the matter in hand in a positive manner - most attempts at this type of thing end up with the usual rancours, which does our image, and any hoped for improvements, no good at all. The most likely immediate step forward does appear to be in the 3D field and perhaps some success here might make an established manufacturer take more notice of what is a major failing in the ever improving standard of commercial models.

 

IMG_0427-crop.JPG

 

Coming to this thread late the impression I am left with is how bad most people's ballasting is.  Forget the sleeper spacing and even the rail section if it is not ballasted correctly it wont look right.   Ben Alder's track looks great, Peco with extra chairs with realistic ballast, both colour and profile.  For modellers who have not actually seen  12" to the foot ballast I append a couple of photos!  Well 4.  Note the sleeper ends are buried in ballast in most of the photos, so it does not actually matter how long they are, and it is far from clear even looking down what the sleeper spacing is, nor is the rail section particularly apparent.   Pretty much like Ben Alder's model in fact.

The fishplates are noticable at Honeybourne. I presume you fine scale modellers buy your track in scale 60 foot lengths to get that diddly dum sound?  Thought not.