Which track for late 80s/early 90s?

[faa77]

Hi, it didn't take me long before I realised Hornby track really didn't look anything like the real thing. Consequently I spent the weekend googling around looking for what I feel to be the most realistic-looking track. However, this became a complicated affair with certain manufacturers not supplying read-made points, supplying kit-based points but made of plastic and didn't conduct great, re-basing wheels to fit P4, and then just completely making your own points using brass sleepers and a solder iron.

 

I wondered if I could detail my preferences and users could help advise what would be best for me?

 

• I really don't wish to re-base the wheels of my models. 
• I'd like the track to look as detailed/realistic as possible. I want a chair to look like its a solid chair, not a piece of plastic applied next to the rail.
• My layout will contain many points. It will also contain double slips.

C&L exactoscale track and use marcway points? 

C&L 

SMP?

 

I'm not against making my own points, but I'd like to understand why I would go to this effort before doing it. What would be the advantage (besides being able to make any track configuration).

 

If anybody has some photos feel free.

 

I like this but not sure what it is:

 

[Dungrange]

I know how you feel.  I was content with 00 Peco Streamline track until I saw some gorgeous hand built P4 point work a few years ago and realised that commercial ready to run track in 00 doesn't really look like the prototype.  I toyed with the idea of moving to P4, but figured that I don't really have the time to modify stock and any stock that I did modify would never be able to run at my local club, where 00 is the only 4mm standard gauge adopted.  Given that I didn't want to change the wheels (like you), I have therefore decided to stick with 00 but to construct my own point work to 4-SF or 00-SF standards (that is 16.2mm gauge or EM-2).  The principal advantage of 4-SF is that you can generally retain the manufacturers back to back dimension (or set it to what it should be).  However, it also allows a narrower and more prototypical flangeway gap.  Given that I haven't actually built the track work yet I can't say that this was the right choice, but I have every reason to believe that it is.  I would therefore recommend that you read up about 4-SF / 00-SF standards, although many 00-SF threads on here tend to get rather heated.

 

The next question, is rail section.  Are you looking to model bullhead track or flat bottom rail?   If you're layout is to be a mainline in the 1990's, then I think it would almost certainly be flat bottom rail.  As far as I am aware, the only 'finescale' 00 flat bottom point work available is the kits produced by Colin Craig.  These kits comprise etched pandrol clips and copperclad sleepers and timbering.  However, you mention chairs, which are associated with bullhead track, and there is still some bullhead track around today, albeit largely confined to minor branches and sidings.  I have chosen the C&L turnout kits, which come with ABS sleepers, individual chairs to be glued on with Butanone and hi-Ni bullhead rail despite being a post privatisation modeller.  C&L make pre-milled switch blades and pre-assembled common crossings or you can make your own.  The other alternatives are of course using plywood sleepers and timbers, or full copperclad construction.  I think the choice is really up to you - what method of construction would you feel most comfortable with?

 

As to why you would make your own point work - the main benefit is as you have already highlighted, you can make a turnout to whatever configuration you want.  For example, the three way turnout that you have highlighted is precisely the sort of track work that you can make and which will never be available as a ready to run product.  DCC concepts may be bringing out a range of 'better' 00 bullhead turnouts, but although this may suit many people, you may have a long wait for any more complex formations.  I think they intend to start the range with a B7 turnout.

 

It's also perhaps questioning whether you'd prefer thin sleepers or thick sleepers.  SMP, the original C&L flexitrack (which is still available) and the new DCC Concepts range are all thin sleepers, whereas the newer C&L flexi-track (which is the former Exactoscale range) has thick sleepers, which are prototypical depth and can also be used with Peco Streamline in a fiddle yard should you so desire.

 

Good luck whatever you decide.

[faa77]

I know how you feel.  I was content with 00 Peco Streamline track until I saw some gorgeous hand built P4 point work a few years ago and realised that commercial ready to run track in 00 doesn't really look like the prototype.  I toyed with the idea of moving to P4, but figured that I don't really have the time to modify stock and any stock that I did modify would never be able to run at my local club, where 00 is the only 4mm standard gauge adopted.  Given that I didn't want to change the wheels (like you), I have therefore decided to stick with 00 but to construct my own point work to 4-SF or 00-SF standards (that is 16.2mm gauge or EM-2).  The principal advantage of 4-SF is that you can generally retain the manufacturers back to back dimension (or set it to what it should be).  However, it also allows a narrower and more prototypical flangeway gap.  Given that I haven't actually built the track work yet I can't say that this was the right choice, but I have every reason to believe that it is.  I would therefore recommend that you read up about 4-SF / 00-SF standards, although many 00-SF threads on here tend to get rather heated.

 

The next question, is rail section.  Are you looking to model bullhead track or flat bottom rail?   If you're layout is to be a mainline in the 1990's, then I think it would almost certainly be flat bottom rail.  As far as I am aware, the only 'finescale' 00 flat bottom point work available is the kits produced by Colin Craig.  These kits comprise etched pandrol clips and copperclad sleepers and timbering.  However, you mention chairs, which are associated with bullhead track, and there is still some bullhead track around today, albeit largely confined to minor branches and sidings.  I have chosen the C&L turnout kits, which come with ABS sleepers, individual chairs to be glued on with Butanone and hi-Ni bullhead rail despite being a post privatisation modeller.  C&L make pre-milled switch blades and pre-assembled common crossings or you can make your own.  The other alternatives are of course using plywood sleepers and timbers, or full copperclad construction.  I think the choice is really up to you - what method of construction would you feel most comfortable with?

 

As to why you would make your own point work - the main benefit is as you have already highlighted, you can make a turnout to whatever configuration you want.  For example, the three way turnout that you have highlighted is precisely the sort of track work that you can make and which will never be available as a ready to run product.  DCC concepts may be bringing out a range of 'better' 00 bullhead turnouts, but although this may suit many people, you may have a long wait for any more complex formations.  I think they intend to start the range with a B7 turnout.

 

It's also perhaps questioning whether you'd prefer thin sleepers or thick sleepers.  SMP, the original C&L flexitrack (which is still available) and the new DCC Concepts range are all thin sleepers, whereas the newer C&L flexi-track (which is the former Exactoscale range) has thick sleepers, which are prototypical depth and can also be used with Peco Streamline in a fiddle yard should you so desire.

 

Good luck whatever you decide.

 

Hi, thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. I wish to model an oil refinery, with a lot of branches going in to the refinery etc. I guess this means I want bullhead track.

 

Within the refinery most of the track is going to be non-standard/straight, so I will probably do it all myself. I have seen copper sleepers soldered to nickel rails, but how are the two connected if you opt for wooden sleepers? I wonder if this is better because after all wood is closer to the real thing?

[ikcdab]

If you use wooden sleepers, you have to insert a small brass rivet through holes in the sleeper first. The sleepers for plain track come predrilled where as for pointwork you need to drill your own.

The rail is then soldered to the rivet. Then you apply cosmetic chairs. It is fiddly and time consuming but does produce a first class result that looks fantastic.

[Grovenor]

Try this topic, most of the methods are covered.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/57911-hayfields-turnout-workbench/&do=findComment&comment=718786

Regards

[Dungrange]

The wholesale change from bullhead rail to flat bottom track started in the 1950 / 1960's although in that time frame, flat bottom track was largely confined to mainlines.  Secondary lines, branches and sidings often reused track from mainlines and therefore by your time period, I'd say that flat bottom track was predominant across the majority of the rail network.  Whether your particular refinery invested in new flat bottom rail or purchased second hand bullhead rail from BR for any replacement is up to you.  I wouldn't say that you have to use bullhead, but you can certainly get away with it and I understand that it is easier to work with bullhead rail than flat bottom rail when for example making the common crossings and switchblades.

 

As has already been said, the traditional way of using plywood sleepers is to drill holes, fit a rivet, solder the rail to the rivet and then fit cosmetic chairs.  However, I also understand that some people glue chairs such as those used in C&L plastic kits direct to the timber.  However, soldering should create a stronger joint - I'm not sure about the strength of a timber / plastic bond.  The only criticism that some have of plywood sleepers is that the grain is too course (ie it is full size grain rather then being scaled by 1:76.2) but there are a lot of nit pickers out there.  By the time the track is laid and weathered, it will look the part.

 

Take the time to read up on each method of construction before making a choice.  By the way, if you haven't already, you should probably look at installing Templot to print all the non-standard templates that you may desire.  I don't find it the most intuitive software package, but it is definitely worth spending the time trying to get to grips with what it can do.

[Mike Storey]

DCC Legacy track might be the ready to lay solution you seek, but if you want FB to match the likely contemporary track to your period, have you considered Tillig Code 83? the points are quite fragile, but much better looking than Peco. The sleeper spacing can soon be adjusted on plain line.

 

Personally, I have returned to Peco code 75 as it is much more reliable in installation and operation, and can be made to look presentable with decent ballasting and weathering.

[faa77]

DCC Legacy track might be the ready to lay solution you seek, but if you want FB to match the likely contemporary track to your period, have you considered Tillig Code 83? the points are quite fragile, but much better looking than Peco. The sleeper spacing can soon be adjusted on plain line.

 

Personally, I have returned to Peco code 75 as it is much more reliable in installation and operation, and can be made to look presentable with decent ballasting and weathering.

 

Hi, I was just reading this:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/56077-trials-with-peco-code-83-marcwaysmp/

 

I thought the "code" simply refers to the rail height? Does it also refer to the sleeper spacing?

[philsandy]

 

I thought the "code" simply refers to the rail height? Does it also refer to the sleeper spacing?

 

It does only refer to the height of the rail, ie. code 83 is 0.083" high.

Sleeper spacing varies depending who has manufactured them. eg. Peco: far too close together.   C&L and SMP much more prototypical.

[Derekstuart]

faa77 if you are looking towards making realistic track then before you decide whether or not to make turnouts yourself/ from kits etc may I recommend having a look at Templot? (It is a donationware track design programme) and at templot.com site as there are countless photographs, articles, questions and answers etc- even if you don't use the software you will find more information about track (prototype and model) there than probably anywhere on the internet.

 

As for making track, it can be frustrating to start with but it's nothing like as hard as people would have you believe (though finding someone who really knows what he is talking about to give you some construction guidance would be a very good idea (seek out, as two examples, Hayfields turnout thread and anything by Howard Bolton). In terms of learning about the prototype you are trying to copy, look for articles by Martin Wynne (developer of Templot)- if he doesn't know it then probably no one will. I have learned a hell of a lot from those three chaps.

 

My advice- buy a C&L (not exactoscale for your first go) kit- a nice B7 would be about right. Have a go and see how you get on, then if you like it progress towards making your own from bundles of rail and sleeper. Like a growing number of people I personally prefer "fully" functional chairs on genuine wooden timbers, but there are those who prefer plastic timbers and even still some using copper to good affect. Try different combinations but be warned it is VERY addictive.