Dungrange Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Hands up for those who want British looking flat bottom track, pre and post Pandro clips to go with the new bullhead track. Where is the hand up button when you need one. :-) 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Although it is very slim, if I ever make a return to 4mm scale/00 there will now be a reliable no-###### bullhead track and point system to return to. Meanwhile, the futility of wanting/demanding absolute perfection in 00 gauge is just that and no amount of super-detailing will improve the narrow-gauge appearance of 00 track or things that run on it. With no wish to alter locos to EM (coaches are a doddle), 7mm/0 gauge saved me the hassle. (And in the event turned out to be the best possible move (for me) in all departments). This is an unfortunate attitude, and one that bedevils a certain "00" mentality . The fact remains OO can be made as detailed as anyone requires, the narrow track is an accident of history. 00 can be as fine scale as your want Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve45 Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 This is an unfortunate attitude, and one that bedevils a certain "00" mentality . The fact remains OO can be made as detailed as anyone requires, the narrow track is an accident of history. 00 can be as fine scale as your want And its only narrow when you look at it head on or above, look at it from the side and its perfect! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted January 14, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 14, 2017 It is only narrow if you decide that it is intended to represent 4ft-8.5in gauge track. If you decide that it is intended to represent 4ft-1.5in gauge track it looks fine. Given that all 00 gauge rolling stock is built to that gauge, modelling track to match seems only sensible. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted January 15, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 15, 2017 Ah, but you did have to be in a sleeper if you were making a through journey and not travelling as a 'classic' passenger. We are OT. But I have done both and I seem to recall from my 1970 trip (sleeper) that they did provide steps on the car deck so that sleeper passengers could get off if they wanted to - but I assumed that was for potential emergencies rather than to access the ship's facilities. As a foot passenger, it was a pretty grim experience in both directions. I particularly remember having to wait for about an hour in that walkway at Marine to get on the ship. It was cold! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 (edited) I love the fact that this thread has now got two distinct and quite unrelated* conversations going on in parallel. We have a lugubrious odyssey about night ferry travel which is simply delightful, and if that holds no interest you can just enjoy the chili-sharp rapid fire spat of gauge obscurity. It's utterly brilliant. * if anyone chooses to take issue with this description, I'm profoundly not bothered Edited January 15, 2017 by 'CHARD 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Vistisen Posted January 15, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 15, 2017 I love the fact that this thread has now got two distinct and quite unrelated* conversations going on in parallel. We have a lugubrious odyssey about night ferry travel which is simply delightful, and if that holds no interest you can just enjoy the chili-sharp rapid fire spat of gauge obscurity. It's utterly brilliant. * if anyone chooses to take issue with this description, I'm profoundly not bothered Don't cross the streams what ever you do. It would be bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Limpley Stoker Posted January 15, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 15, 2017 Don't cross the streams what ever you do. It would be bad. But was it flat bottomed rail on the ferry deck? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 15, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 15, 2017 But was it flat bottomed rail on the ferry deck? I'm fairly sure it didn't have chairs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 Lets be clear, the only person that thinks Peco are going to do jointed blades is Bertiedog. Indeed, lets be a bit more clear, please read more carefully, you are crediting a statement by me that is wrongly reported, I do not support hinged points, I do not like hinged points, I do not like folded material used as blades, I have never advocated their use in any way shape or form. The information I had from them was the design was not quite settled, they were testing out things. This was given after Warley, not before and was a senior member of staff. If I received the wrong information, or you did, it is a matter for Peco, not me! Stephen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 On the ferry track, I did a commissioned model of a SECR Channel ferry boat many years ago for a maritime museum and research showed bullhead track in chairs bolted to the steel decking, with what looked like a pad under the bullhead chair, it might have been Gutta Percha, natural rubber. The track was fitted closely with oak decking planks set along the track, bolted to the steel under deck. There were regular shackle points along the outside rails for cable and stays to be fitted and bolted to. The oak was fully caulked get a good surface. At the ends of the run and at every carriage break there was a cast iron ridged area to provide non slip surface to people getting on and off the coaches via steps. Stephen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Limpley Stoker Posted January 15, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 15, 2017 On the ferry track, I did a commissioned model of a SECR Channel ferry boat many years ago for a maritime museum and research showed bullhead track in chairs bolted to the steel decking, with what looked like a pad under the bullhead chair, it might have been Gutta Percha, natural rubber. The track was fitted closely with oak decking planks set along the track, bolted to the steel under deck. There were regular shackle points along the outside rails for cable and stays to be fitted and bolted to. The oak was fully caulked get a good surface. At the ends of the run and at every carriage break there was a cast iron ridged area to provide non slip surface to people getting on and off the coaches via steps. Stephen That's really interesting- I wonder what use the rubber pads served when they were compressed by the weight of the carriages- or perhaps they were just there to reduce the rumbling noise reverberating through the ferry while loading! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Budgie Posted January 15, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 15, 2017 Don't cross the streams what ever you do. It would be bad. Especially if while trying to cross the streams you were to fall in Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 Probably the gutta percha was there to spread the load a bit and stop cracking of the steel deck, which in those days would have been more brittle iron sheet. There must have been a considerable extra amount of cross beams under the decking to take the weight and spread it to the ships frames. Bolted to the deck without a buffer block it could have even cracked the cross beams. It's not possible to tell what track is used on later ferries, the track is all buried in wood decking, but the National Maritime had partial drawings for the one I did. Stephen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PMP Posted January 15, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 15, 2017 Indeed, lets be a bit more clear, please read more carefully, you are crediting a statement by me that is wrongly reported, I do not support hinged points, I do not like hinged points, I do not like folded material used as blades, I have never advocated their use in any way shape or form. The information I had from them was the design was not quite settled, they were testing out things. This was given after Warley, not before and was a senior member of staff. If I received the wrong information, or you did, it is a matter for Peco, not me! Stephen Well, I said, the only person thinking they are doing hinged blades is Bertiedog. I recall your post of 29th December 2016 As they plan to leave the geometry alone, I doubt they would alter the lightly sprung blades and the solenoids they offer at present, they work for most users, especially when correctly used with a CD unit! Stephen and 6th Jan 2017 I very much doubt that Peco would move to solid blades, it is part of the design that Mr Pritchard was proud of, saving machining, with basically pressed and folded parts, and with a light positive snap action. Solid blades must double the pressure required to moved them and a far more powerful over centre spring to hold the blade to the outer rails would be needed, No idea why I reached the conclusion that you thought they were going to keep hinged blades. Please accept my unreserved apologies. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold NHY 581 Posted January 16, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2017 And its only narrow when you look at it head on or above, look at it from the side and its perfect!It takes a bit of work but.......... Rob. 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatB Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 I'm fairly sure it didn't have chairs. So it was old style soldered copperclad then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dungrange Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 It takes a bit of work but.......... Rob. I'm sorry - I just can't tell what gauge that is!!! Surely it can't be 00.. :-) Out of interest, did you fix the grass before or after ballasting? I need to create a similarly overgrown engineer's siding. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold NHY 581 Posted January 16, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2017 I'm sorry - I just can't tell what gauge that is!!! Surely it can't be 00.. :-) Out of interest, did you fix the grass before or after ballasting? I need to create a similarly overgrown engineer's siding. It's Peco code 75, OO gauge. Static grass was applied post ballast. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 It's Peco code 75, OO gauge. Static grass was applied post ballast. The sleepers certainly look wider and to my eye better, in the photos the chairs look a bit non descript (could be the photo's or my eyes) on the other hand uni-regional Nice bit of track laying I must say Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold NHY 581 Posted January 16, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2017 (edited) The sleepers certainly look wider and to my eye better, in the photos the chairs look a bit non descript (could be the photo's or my eyes) on the other hand uni-regional Nice bit of track laying I must say Thanks John but so as to avoid any confusion it is the old code 75 with HO gauge sleeper spacing, if that makes sense. Not altered the spacing, just took a bit of time sticking it down. Rob. Edited January 16, 2017 by nhy581 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 Rob That answers the thing about the chairs, also confirms the sleeper spacing looks good. The one thing with Peco track is that the old stuff had the same sleeper and timber widths, where the turnout timbers are wider than the sleepers. Never the less looks very good Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Parker Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 I very much doubt that Peco would move to solid blades, it is part of the design that Mr Pritchard was proud of, saving machining, with basically pressed and folded parts, and with a light positive snap action. Solid blades must double the pressure required to moved them and a far more powerful over centre spring to hold the blade to the outer rails would be needed, Just spotted this a few posts up. I've used solid blades on OO points for over 25 years. Code 75 SMP N/S rail soldered to PCB sleepers. All operated by Peco motors with the adaptor base incorporating a standard over-centre spring. No problems at all with that set-up so I'd suggest the new points could also have solid blades and work just as well. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 Hands up for those who want British looking flat bottom track, pre and post Pandro clips to go with the new bullhead track. Not me. I am quite content with the look of plain line c75 FB track now, which elongates the look, at the expense of true scale, but gives it better verisimilitude (copyright: the god-like, much worshipped Tag Gorton, Garden Rail). What I hate are the implausibly tight angles on the S&C. I would much rather Peco spent their hard-earned on giving me code 8 angles on code 75 pointwork, so I don't have to keep using code 83 track, which, together with its plain line, is much more difficult to disguise for a British layout. In any event, there is no such thing really as "British looking" FB track, as opposed to any other FB track (disregarding bi-furb etc). You can widen the sleepers, extend the distance between them and lengthen them all you want, but Rule 1 still applies, as above. The production of BH track provides a step change you would not get with FB. IMHO, of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dungrange Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 To a certain extent, I agree, although it will be difficult to mix the existing flat bottom rail with the new bullhead as per real life, which is what many of us want to do. New lines in flat bottom (preferably Code 82/83) and sidings etc still in bullhead (using the new track that Peco have now produced). At the moment I use the C&L / Exactoscale product for flat bottom plain line, but that has concrete sleepers. Matching turnouts is the biggest gap in the market and the market for these would probably be largest if it was created with timber bearers (given that concrete point and crossing work is largely confined to the 21st Century). 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts