Richie Kynaston Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) Hi all, I haven't been involved in model railways in OO gauge for about 25 years, at that time Lima was one of the best and I don't think Bachman existed! Early days, but just getting back into the hobby now, I've toyed with a few ideas and gauges including O, as a couple of friends are in O and I'm helping one of them to scratchbuild a diesel loco, but realistically I don't have room for O. So I'm looking at OO and hoping that some of you can provide some pointers... A) Track. I'm modelling either late 80s/early 90s or modern day, so what track should I go for? There seems to be different types of Peco and also code, not sure what the code bit is all about. I want to get it as realistic as possible, thinking about either commissioning some hand built points or using Marcway - anyone any thoughts? I've had a bash at O gauge point building and got in a right mess, so hand-built is definitely not for me at the moment! B) Radius and Gradents. The fiddle yard will be below the main layout, so does the old adage of 1cm up for every 60cm travelled still hold true for a good grade. Hopefully running scale length trains (i.e. 56 with 28-30 HAAs). I want the curves to be non-model like and realistic so going for large radius, probably about 4-5' should that look right? C) even though I'm not building the track by hand, it has been suggested that Templot is the best way forward for planning. Would others agree? Hoping to get some nice transitions into the main line sweeping curves if I can plan it all right. D) obviously things have come along way since Lima pancake motors. But I'm hopefully going to be using Zimo sound decoders. Are all manufacturers much of a muchness these days for motors, or are there differences? Oh and what is the difference with the Hornby Railroad range? Do wagons/coaches come with metal wheels for/with pickups these days or can they be relatively easily retro fitted? E) I know with the European stuff, most stock has NEM pockets today, but what's the situation with the UK stock? Few shop sites seem to list them but they are mentioned in reviews - are they common? How do people close-couple coaches these days, and can corridor connections be obtained or is it still using folded card? All help and any pointers are appreciated! Richie Edited July 3, 2017 by Richie Kynaston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium BR60103 Posted June 19, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 19, 2017 Richie: Welcome back. A track. Code is the height of the rail in thous (.001"). Code 100 is the heavy end (nowadays). Code 70/75 is lighter and closer to scale for all but the heaviest lines. Most modern stock will run on code 70. Peco streamline has sleepers closer than scale spacing but they can be spread out. They also have bullhead but you can ignore that for modern day. You may also want to look at concrete sleepered track depending on where you model. I've gone to code 75 for all my new track, but I've kept my legacy code 100. B radius & gradients This varies. 4-5' radius should look good; I've never had the space myself. 1 in 60 is probably reasonable for most layouts, but you might try to test it with a train that long. I have one loco that struggles with 2 small coaches on 1 in 50. C no idea. D I think there is even variance within a manufacturer's range. Hornby railroad is a cheaper end. Less detail, sometimes uses older moulds. May not have the sme finish as the expensive ones. Wheels may vary. Some come fitted with lights and pickups; otherwise you may have to work at it yourself. E NEM pockets Check the stock. There may be some older stock that doesn't have it yet. Also check the coupler. If the tension lock doesn't come straight out (if there is a vertical crank in the shaft) the pocket is at the wrong level. One well-known manufacturer is known for having 3 different levels of pockets which means that replacement couplers will be all wrong. (look through the forum for more info). Close coupling is often done with mechanisms and stuff below the floor. At your radius things should work; I have some problems at 30-36". Corridor connections may be available. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steamport Southport Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 For couplings I would say that NEM sockets have been the norm for quite a while. This allows you to take your pick of which coupling system you prefer, whether it's tension lock, Kadee, Roco, etc. You may still get a few that are the older style of fixing though, particularly Hornby Railroad models which are mostly older models from the 1970s and early 1980s, some of which are old Lima, Airfix and Dapol models. Even in these the old pancake motors are mostly gone. Most modern coaches are fine as they come when it comes to corridor connections. Many of them also have close couplings supplied. But if you need them, for corridor connections then I would recommend Keen Systems. http://keen-systems.com/Carriage%20Ends.html They also have a close coupling system. http://keen-systems.com/Couplings.html Jason 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Phil Bullock Posted June 19, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) E - close coupling coaches Have a look at http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/1432/entry-12702-close-coupling-mixed-rakes-of-Bachmann-and-hornbyairfix-coaches/ and http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/114179-Hornby-couplings-close-coupling-nem-pocket/ We have standardised on the Hornbys on Bachmann Mk1s except for the TPOs and sleepers which have a different close coupling mechanism and are better with the Rocos Have also retro fitted Keen systems close coupling mechs to a couple of older Replica/Mainline coaches and they work well too Kind regards Phil Edited June 19, 2017 by Phil Bullock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Most modern stock will run on code 70. Peco streamline has sleepers closer than scale spacing but they can be spread out. They also have bullhead but you can ignore that for modern day. You may also want to look at concrete sleepered track depending on where you model. There is still plenty of bullhead in yards & sidings today. In the 80's/90s, it was common on secondary lines, along with flat-bottom on wooden sleepers. Other manufacturers other than Peco also produce track so you may want to look at these too. As mentioned above, spacing out the sleepers on Peco's flat-bottom track is easy & produces a big visual improvement (bullhead uses more accurate sleeper spacing). I never saw any points with concrete bearers until the 2000s though, but if you are going for handbuilt or Marcway, you will not be looking at these anyway. Motors vary a little but Zimo decoders should take care of them. They are very tuneable & also work well out of the box. I have not tried it but 1 in 60 sounds very steep for a loco with 30 HAAs. You may want to ease that off but also consider what looks right for a model train. 30 wagons may be prototypical but would 18-20 really look too short? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) D) obviously things have come along way since Lima pancake motors. But I'm hopefully going to be using Zimo sound decoders. Are all manufacturers much of a muchness these days for motors, or are there differences? Oh and what is the difference with the Hornby Railroad range? Do wagons/coaches come with metal wheels for/with pickups these days or can they be relatively easily retro fitted? In the case of diesel traction the Railroad range is dominated by ex-Lima bodies, with a better motor bogie by Hornby. Dependent on traction tyres to move any sort of load. All of Bachmann, Dapol, Heljan, Hornby (main range) and SLW have versions of the centre motor flywheel drive to both bogies with at least two axles driving and picking up on each bogie, plain metal tyres, plentiful weight. In all but the narrow bodied types from Heljan a chunky five pole flat can motor is used, an 1830 or 1833 in exterior dimensions*. (I have had one of these running regularly roughly since your departure 25 years ago, in an example of a Bachmann Peak which was first introduction of this type of drive in OO during the early 90s, still as quiet and reliable as ever.) These are a day over night improvement in the drive stakes over every motor bogie ever offered in OO - based on the well proven designs used in North American HO - quiet, smooth and with ample traction. Practically every diesel prototype that has run on BR now has a model available too. Most folks run out of either layout space or vehicles to fully test the haulage of the larger types that weigh in around 600g. These will realistically start and accelerate smoothly up to whatever is a scale maximum speed for the type with a 'full trainload'. (I have tried one such with 40 BR mk1s behind it, and it achieved scale speed for the rated service maximum of 105mph.) Most OO rolling stock is now on metal wheels. Get a look at Bachmann's split axle pinpoint pick up for coaches and MU's, pretty much the ideal low friction pick up. Hornby will insist on axle wipers, better than wheelback but still imposing incremental drag. We are waiting to see what Oxford Rail (relatively new entrant to OO) get up to in their Mk3s. * Edited to correct a small economy with the truth. I haven't actually laid eyes on either the Dapol or SLW motor, but have made the dangerous assumption that they will have something fo the same standard - or better - than B,H&H, all of whose motors I have had out of the mechanism for inspection. Perhaps owners of D&S will comment? Edited June 19, 2017 by 34theletterbetweenB&D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Kynaston Posted June 19, 2017 Author Share Posted June 19, 2017 Guys, Many, many thanks for all the background info. I hadn't expected such a quick reply, esp BR60103! My proposal is that the gradients will be 'off scene' so the issue is purely about traction and no looks, although I do have the thought of laying some steel strip below the track and fitting a small magnet over the motor bogie to increase reactive effort. At the moment I've not purchased any stock, but once I do some testing will be necessary. Pete mentioned about whether shorter rakes would look out of place. Probably not, I'm starting from my ideal point of view, then make compromises where I have to. I want to have 47s running on six coach Trans-Pennine Mk2 sets and hopefully an eight coach HST for London services, so the wagon takes that we're long just need to stay in perspective. I think (sorry I'm replying from my phone) that Pete also mentioned that there were other suppliers of track - could you give me a heads up on those? I've only come across Peco, but like all things on the web it helps to know what your actually looking for! I did come across one, but think it was more European, although now I've started typing I can't remember the name! Jason/Phil, thanks for the added background on close coupling. I'll go have a look at those. The Abbotswood Jn layout looks fantastic btw. May have to start looking at local exhibitions for some ideas! Power wise a couple of friends have got Digitrax DCC systems, so think I'll go down the same route. What has astonished me is the cost of everything these days. I appreciate all prices go up, but I used to pick up Lima locos for around £20, even the non DCC are £60 for an 08! It's probably going to be a slower build up in stock than I imagined!! Other than Hattons/Cheltenham who seem to dominate the modelling mag advertising, are there any other smaller model shops/online Echols that people can recommend who are good on price and service? Always like to support the smaller guys if possible, and building a rapor with any business usually pays dividends I find. Thanks again to all! Richie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 If you are newly coming back to 00 gauge and modelling diesel era and looking for proper looking 4 mm scale track, I would suggest moving to EM gauge, modifications to modern stock are simple (something your 0 gauge friends would help you out on) As for track either in EM or 00 gauges go for the Exactoscale fast track bases or the C&L thick flexi track A basic plan is easy to make in Templot and there is plenty who will assist in the Templot Club As for plain track, you may need to choose between concrete sleepers and or wooden sleepers Turnouts are simple to build using plastic timbers and chairs, if you can file up and solder a Vee cost will be minimal. Pre-built Vees are available, but pricey If going to build in 00 gauge then have the common crossings within the turnouts and crossings built to 00sf standards for better looks and performance If you are starting off with minimal stock do not make compromises, which you might regret in the future. The new Peco offerings though to 00 gauge scale (not H0) may not be what you require as its 4 mm scale bullhead rail, concrete sleepered track offered by Peco is H0 scale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Kynaston Posted June 19, 2017 Author Share Posted June 19, 2017 If you are newly coming back to 00 gauge and modelling diesel era and looking for proper looking 4 mm scale track, I would suggest moving to EM gauge, modifications to modern stock are simple (something your 0 gauge friends would help you out on) As for track either in EM or 00 gauges go for the Exactoscale fast track bases or the C&L thick flexi track A basic plan is easy to make in Templot and there is plenty who will assist in the Templot Club As for plain track, you may need to choose between concrete sleepers and or wooden sleepers Turnouts are simple to build using plastic timbers and chairs, if you can file up and solder a Vee cost will be minimal. Pre-built Vees are available, but pricey If going to build in 00 gauge then have the common crossings within the turnouts and crossings built to 00sf standards for better looks and performance If you are starting off with minimal stock do not make compromises, which you might regret in the future. The new Peco offerings though to 00 gauge scale (not H0) may not be what you require as its 4 mm scale bullhead rail, concrete sleepered track offered by Peco is H0 scale Hello Hayfield, Interesting thoughts. I've seen reference to EM and thought it was more of a scale scale if that makes sense! I have come across a wonderful website, something like 1970sEMgauge that has several layouts, all of which are superb, but (no offence intended) I'm not really sure what the differences to OO are. You mention about wheel spacing, if you don't mind me asking, what is involved with modelling in EM and what are the real benefits? Apologies if that is a daft or obvious question. I have been reading up on track work (a quiet Sunday night at work is great research time on a fully charged phone!!) and hope to be able to avoid wheel drop in the gaps between the points. I also want to make sure the electrical side is spot on so nothing stops or stutttters. But I'm not convinced I can build my own points. I found attempting an O gauge point difficult and frustrating and generally made a complete botch up of it! So I do have concerns that OO or EM gauge would be worse! Having said that I'd love to be able to achieve the standards of many on here in trackwork, scenery and modelling where you struggle to tell a model picture from the real thing. Apologies to all btw that I don't know your names. I've just realised that the mobile version of this forum doesn't display signatures, so if your name is in there I can see it on my phone!! Richie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejstubbs Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) C) even though I'm not building the track by hand, it has been suggested that Templot is the best way forward for planning. Would others agree? Hoping to get some nice transitions into the main line sweeping curves if I can plan it all right. I would say that Templot is way OTT for track planning with ready-to-lay points and flexitrack (I think Martin Wynne would agree). Most people seem to use either AnyRail or XtrkCAD, although there are other track planning tools around. IIRC XtrkCAD has better facilities for designing transition curves than AnyRail, but I find its UI paradigm difficult to get on with. XtrkCad does have the potential advantage that it runs on Windows, Mac or Linux whereas AnyRail is Windows-only. That said, I run AnyRail quite happily on my Mac within a Windows 10 virtual machine running under Virtual Box. (Virtual Box is free, Windows costs money. There are tools out there which you can use to "P2V" a Windows 10 machine and load it up as a vm.) Edited June 19, 2017 by ejstubbs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted June 19, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) Hello Hayfield, Interesting thoughts. I've seen reference to EM and thought it was more of a scale scale if that makes sense! I have come across a wonderful website, something like 1970sEMgauge that has several layouts, all of which are superb, but (no offence intended) I'm not really sure what the differences to OO are. You mention about wheel spacing, if you don't mind me asking, what is involved with modelling in EM and what are the real benefits? Apologies if that is a daft or obvious question. I have been reading up on track work (a quiet Sunday night at work is great research time on a fully charged phone!!) and hope to be able to avoid wheel drop in the gaps between the points. I also want to make sure the electrical side is spot on so nothing stops or stutttters. But I'm not convinced I can build my own points. I found attempting an O gauge point difficult and frustrating and generally made a complete botch up of it! So I do have concerns that OO or EM gauge would be worse! Having said that I'd love to be able to achieve the standards of many on here in trackwork, scenery and modelling where you struggle to tell a model picture from the real thing. Apologies to all btw that I don't know your names. I've just realised that the mobile version of this forum doesn't display signatures, so if your name is in there I can see it on my phone!! Richie There are no daft questions except the ones you don't ask, Ritchie, and it doesn't matter if a question is obvious to anyone else, you still need the answer. In brief:- EM is more of a scale gauge, scaling out at 4'6" against the dead 4' of 00; both use models built to a scale size of 4mm to the foot, and what a delightfully British compromise that is. Expressed as a ratio, it is 1;76, 1/76th scale. Real track is at gauge of 4'8 and a 1/2 inches, George Stephenson's average of waggonway and tramway gauges in the North East of England in the early 19th century. EM is a little more challenging than rtr 00, but less so than proper scale 18;83mm gauge and it's associated railhead and wheel tyre profiles. All these gauges are in the 4mm/foot scale. I imagine some of your 0 gauge friends will be able to guide you on the matter once they've stopped trying to convert you to 0! Conversion from 00 to EM is sometimes no more difficult than easing the wheels out on the axles to the new back-to-back dimension, which is what I think is meant by 'wheel spacing',though it can sometimes involves more work in order to maintain brake alignments or body clearances; it depends on the individual model, but if you are thinking in terms of 30 wagon MGR trains and the rtr wagons need a bit of work, you need to factor in the extra time needed to do it! The advantage of EM is visual, the very much better, closer to scale, look of the track; 00 is a compromise from 80 years ago when getting models that small to run and stay on the tracks at all was miraculous, and it would never be accepted if introduced nowadays, or even 40 years ago. The British rtr trade is solidly committed to it, however, and their perceived wisdom is that it would be market suicide to invest in anything else. If you like a bit of irony, pop over to the Oxford Rail section and read all about how much fuss is made of miniscule possible discrepancies in the new Dean Goods by people who are going to be happy to run it on track that is a scale 8 and a half inches too narrow. Your mention of NEM pockets suggests that you are going to be using tension lock couplers as supplied with all British rtr stcok. You do not need to do this on a layout planned with such generous curves, and will be able to make the choice of couplers according to your particular needs. Do you require automatic coupling and/or uncoupling? Will you be performing propelling movements? If you are not doing these things, it may be worth your while using scale couplings which will not only replicate the ones on the real vehicles, but alos allow much closer and better scaled distances between your stock, probably a couple of wagons worth on a 30 wagon MGR! This looks better, saves space, and makes for smoother running as there is less of a 'snatch' as the loco gets the train moving and less buffering up as it slows and stops. These would be screw couplings on your mk1 stock, at least for the coupling between the train and the loco, and 'instanter' 3 link for the MGR wagons; other freight vehicles mostly had screw couplings by the 80s/90s, but some departmental stock would still be around with instanters. Down side is that they are a faff to uncouple and more of one to couple up! HSTs, dmus, and mk1s within the rake will be fine with whatever couplers they came with; modern model passenger stock has spring loaded extendable couplers to maintain close corridor connections but be able to stretch to allow passage through sharp curves; yours won't even have to work for their living! Another alternative might be the Bedford type couplings, solid castings of the complete coupling between vehicles, both couplings, including brake pipes, which are bolted to the floor of each vehicle. These have the advantage of the best possible scale appearance and absolute prevention of buffer lock when propelling, but mean that stock so fitted has to be run in permanently coupled rakes with 'converter' vehicles at the outer ends so that locos can be attached and detached, and are very awkward to deal with if you want to remove a vehicle from a rake for any reason. Just a few musings to add to the very sensible advice already posted! Edited June 19, 2017 by The Johnster 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 If you are newly coming back to 00 gauge and modelling diesel era and looking for proper looking 4 mm scale track, I would suggest moving to EM gauge, modifications to modern stock are simple (something your 0 gauge friends would help you out on) As for track either in EM or 00 gauges go for the Exactoscale fast track bases or the C&L thick flexi track A basic plan is easy to make in Templot and there is plenty who will assist in the Templot Club As for plain track, you may need to choose between concrete sleepers and or wooden sleepers Turnouts are simple to build using plastic timbers and chairs, if you can file up and solder a Vee cost will be minimal. Pre-built Vees are available, but pricey If going to build in 00 gauge then have the common crossings within the turnouts and crossings built to 00sf standards for better looks and performance If you are starting off with minimal stock do not make compromises, which you might regret in the future. The new Peco offerings though to 00 gauge scale (not H0) may not be what you require as its 4 mm scale bullhead rail, concrete sleepered track offered by Peco is H0 scale It is indeed HO scale, but you can always space the sleepers a little further apart & this improves the look enormously. I find SMP & C&L sleepers can look a little big with 00 track. I am not sure whether it is because the sleepers are true 4mm with slightly narrow (00) track, or it may be that I am used to the look of slightly short sleepers. A comment was made about using a steel strip & under-track magnets to improve adhesion. DCC Concepts market a system for this. Another mention was made about the price of newer models compared with 25 years ago. In the 1990s, British modellers expressed a preference for higher quality models: better drive systems, more detail & extras such as working lights. This pushed up the price of models quite sharply. Hornby have retained some of their (& Lima) older models as their Railroad range. Their newer models make up their standard range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 My local model shop staff are very friendly and helpful at Cheltenham Model Centre. Staff at Paignton Model centre are also extremely helpful and I hope the reception my father in law got at Kernow was a one off, though being that rude to an 80 year old is unacceptable. Code 100 may well be nearer to scale for late 80s main lines than code 75, It allows more flexibility with choice of wheels and is more robust, plenty of branches and secondary lines were still bullhead then. Gradients, well my ruling grade outside is 1 in 14 and Lima class 37s growl up on 6 Mk2s ok. However that is on battery power on nice dirty track with traction tyres. You may well find as I did some locos wont pull 20-30 wagons downhill let alone uphill on clean track, especially those with poor tread profiles, The best tread profiles I know of are Romford Markits originals and old Hornby Dublo on code 100, Bachmann aren't too bad, you can hear the wheels grinding at the rails when they slip if the profile is anything like right. I use Anyrail for intermediate stage planning, back of a fag packet for original concept, train length plus a foot for each point is a good way to work out if you have enough space for what you want, then draw the track formations in Anyrail, then lay it and you can always make improvements by tweaking bending and sawing bits off points, especially closing up clearances between pairs of tracks. Traction tyres make the track dirty, I think we have just an old Hornby King and a 1971 9F left in regular use and it is very noticeable when they have been in use. Well worth banning traction tyres from the get go. Two power bogies, scale non grooved wheels and loads of lead ballast is the way to go Gradients need to be measured from true horizontal, a very accurate spirit level is needed and reverse it every measurement to even out the effor. Plenty of "1 in 50" gradients are 1 in 30 because the baseline was 1 in 100 and not level, and lets face it 1 in 100 is level if you are a jobbing carpenter or a bit of a DiY bodger. Long trains run reliably means all wheel drive and two power bogies in older locos. On our indoor layout an old Farish Prairie tank pulls 40 wagons on the level and pushes 20 up a 1 in 30. so assigning it to banking duties neatly solves the problem of wont pull the skin off a rice pudding locos as the sidings only hold 22 anyway. It has banked a train of 8 coaches up the 1 in 36 headed by a non powered loco on occasions! The flip side of gradients for underneath storage is baseboard framing, In 00 you only need 75mm rail top to rail top to get one track under another if you get really serious about it yet plenty of modelers insist on 2X1 framing under the upper level making this 125 mm. My loft layout had storage behind the station and the upper / lower crossing was only 75mm with the strength replaced with girders above the track, Metal Hornby Dublo girders securely screwed in place. Station platforms can also provide strength at above baseboard surface level. Radii are a moot point, I have 2nd radius (18") and six foot on the outside layout, the six foot looks sharp from the bedroom window, the 18" looks ok viewed through the tunnel, its more about getting the track spacing right and big radii allow closer spacing down towards 40/42mm instead of the peco 50mm and set track 60 mm plus. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Kynaston Posted June 19, 2017 Author Share Posted June 19, 2017 I would say that Templot is way OTT for track planning with ready-to-lay points and flexitrack (I think Martin Wynne would agree). Most people seem to use either AnyRail or XtrkCAD, although there are other track planning tools around. IIRC XtrkCAD has better facilities for designing transition curves than AnyRail, but I find its UI paradigm difficult to get on with. XtrkCad does have the potential advantage that it runs on Windows, Mac or Linux whereas AnyRail is Windows-only. That said, I run AnyRail quite happily on my Mac within a Windows 10 virtual machine running under Virtual Box. (Virtual Box is free, Windows costs money. There are tools out there which you can use to "P2V" a Windows 10 machine and load it up as a vm.) Thanks for that. I have learnt to use Templot a little, while helping one of my mates with his O gauge layout, but did wonder about how to replicate Ready-to-Lay points. I have to say however, that im at a very early stage in all this, and learning is a key thing for me at the moment! Hayfield has thrown a somewhat big pebble into the point with the EM query. I need to give that serious thought, but one side of me says well you said if your going to do it, do it right, get it looking right, the other side of me says, is it actually worth the effort to convert things to EM, as it is just adding to the list of jobs to be done! Food for thought I guess. One of the other thoughts is that smooth running through points and crossings would probably be better if they were handbuilt. I must admit, I am not keen on the plastic bits on the Peco points from a visual viewpoint, but am i just being too picky? I then look at things like Waverley West and Llanbourne on here, and think wow, if thats what you can achieve in OO, think what you could do in EM! Arrgh . I presume that the two pieces of software you mention can design for EM? A comment was made about using a steel strip & under-track magnets to improve adhesion. DCC Concepts market a system for this. Another mention was made about the price of newer models compared with 25 years ago. In the 1990s, British modellers expressed a preference for higher quality models: better drive systems, more detail & extras such as working lights. This pushed up the price of models quite sharply. Hornby have retained some of their (& Lima) older models as their Railroad range. Their newer models make up their standard range. Thanks Pete, i'll look at the DCC Concepts system. Yes, your quite right of course, the cost of models has gone up with better drive systems, more detail and of course DCC, I should have added that when I commented. I wasnt really complaining pricewise, I think the latest models do seem to offer a lot of value, it just surprised me when I first looked!! My local model shop staff are very friendly and helpful at Cheltenham Model Centre. Staff at Paignton Model centre are also extremely helpful and I hope the reception my father in law got at Kernow was a one off, though being that rude to an 80 year old is unacceptable. Code 100 may well be nearer to scale for late 80s main lines than code 75, It allows more flexibility with choice of wheels and is more robust, plenty of branches and secondary lines were still bullhead then. Gradients, well my ruling grade outside is 1 in 14 and Lima class 37s growl up on 6 Mk2s ok. However that is on battery power on nice dirty track with traction tyres. You may well find as I did some locos wont pull 20-30 wagons downhill let alone uphill on clean track, especially those with poor tread profiles, The best tread profiles I know of are Romford Markits originals and old Hornby Dublo on code 100, Bachmann aren't too bad, you can hear the wheels grinding at the rails when they slip if the profile is anything like right. I use Anyrail for intermediate stage planning, back of a fag packet for original concept, train length plus a foot for each point is a good way to work out if you have enough space for what you want, then draw the track formations in Anyrail, then lay it and you can always make improvements by tweaking bending and sawing bits off points, especially closing up clearances between pairs of tracks. Traction tyres make the track dirty, I think we have just an old Hornby King and a 1971 9F left in regular use and it is very noticeable when they have been in use. Well worth banning traction tyres from the get go. Two power bogies, scale non grooved wheels and loads of lead ballast is the way to go Gradients need to be measured from true horizontal, a very accurate spirit level is needed and reverse it every measurement to even out the effor. Plenty of "1 in 50" gradients are 1 in 30 because the baseline was 1 in 100 and not level, and lets face it 1 in 100 is level if you are a jobbing carpenter or a bit of a DiY bodger. Long trains run reliably means all wheel drive and two power bogies in older locos. On our indoor layout an old Farish Prairie tank pulls 40 wagons on the level and pushes 20 up a 1 in 30. so assigning it to banking duties neatly solves the problem of wont pull the skin off a rice pudding locos as the sidings only hold 22 anyway. It has banked a train of 8 coaches up the 1 in 36 headed by a non powered loco on occasions! The flip side of gradients for underneath storage is baseboard framing, In 00 you only need 75mm rail top to rail top to get one track under another if you get really serious about it yet plenty of modelers insist on 2X1 framing under the upper level making this 125 mm. My loft layout had storage behind the station and the upper / lower crossing was only 75mm with the strength replaced with girders above the track, Metal Hornby Dublo girders securely screwed in place. Station platforms can also provide strength at above baseboard surface level. Radii are a moot point, I have 2nd radius (18") and six foot on the outside layout, the six foot looks sharp from the bedroom window, the 18" looks ok viewed through the tunnel, its more about getting the track spacing right and big radii allow closer spacing down towards 40/42mm instead of the peco 50mm and set track 60 mm plus. David, Thanks for your input and all your thoughts. I'll have to have a look at this Anyrail package, i've been 'doodling' on bits of paper, and have a rough idea of what i want to achieve at the end, but of course a totally different outcome is usually be achieved when you start putting sizes and measurements to things. Is there any difference in the running quality between Code 75 and Code 100? Bearing in mind, I have no stock at the moment, so any purchases will be new, or good quality second hand. You make some valid points about gradients there, so more "food for thought", and you have also raised the issue of baseboard framing. My thought is to try and build a framework, a bit like that pictured here (http://www.pls-layouts.co.uk/html/benchwork.htm) and then lay a trackbed that is just wide-enough for the track, as I want to get some variations in the scenery and the like, so that would probably also affect the depth of the lower levels in places. In my mind I have this thought of a four/five span brick bridge over a river that i'd like to recreate! Thanks to everyone for your input, please keep it coming! Its raising points that I hadnt thought about, and making me think of how the best way for me to achieve what I want. Thanks guys. Richie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Kynaston Posted June 19, 2017 Author Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) There are no daft questions except the ones you don't ask, Ritchie, and it doesn't matter if a question is obvious to anyone else, you still need the answer. In brief:- EM is more of a scale gauge, scaling out at 4'6" against the dead 4' of 00; both use models built to a scale size of 4mm to the foot, and what a delightfully British compromise that is. Expressed as a ratio, it is 1;76, 1/76th scale. Real track is at gauge of 4'8 and a 1/2 inches, George Stephenson's average of waggonway and tramway gauges in the North East of England in the early 19th century. EM is a little more challenging than rtr 00, but less so than proper scale 18;83mm gauge and it's associated railhead and wheel tyre profiles. All these gauges are in the 4mm/foot scale. I imagine some of your 0 gauge friends will be able to guide you on the matter once they've stopped trying to convert you to 0! Conversion from 00 to EM is sometimes no more difficult than easing the wheels out on the axles to the new back-to-back dimension, which is what I think is meant by 'wheel spacing',though it can sometimes involves more work in order to maintain brake alignments or body clearances; it depends on the individual model, but if you are thinking in terms of 30 wagon MGR trains and the rtr wagons need a bit of work, you need to factor in the extra time needed to do it! The advantage of EM is visual, the very much better, closer to scale, look of the track; 00 is a compromise from 80 years ago when getting models that small to run and stay on the tracks at all was miraculous, and it would never be accepted if introduced nowadays, or even 40 years ago. The British rtr trade is solidly committed to it, however, and their perceived wisdom is that it would be market suicide to invest in anything else. If you like a bit of irony, pop over to the Oxford Rail section and read all about how much fuss is made of miniscule possible discrepancies in the new Dean Goods by people who are going to be happy to run it on track that is a scale 8 and a half inches too narrow. Your mention of NEM pockets suggests that you are going to be using tension lock couplers as supplied with all British rtr stcok. You do not need to do this on a layout planned with such generous curves, and will be able to make the choice of couplers according to your particular needs. Do you require automatic coupling and/or uncoupling? Will you be performing propelling movements? If you are not doing these things, it may be worth your while using scale couplings which will not only replicate the ones on the real vehicles, but alos allow much closer and better scaled distances between your stock, probably a couple of wagons worth on a 30 wagon MGR! This looks better, saves space, and makes for smoother running as there is less of a 'snatch' as the loco gets the train moving and less buffering up as it slows and stops. These would be screw couplings on your mk1 stock, at least for the coupling between the train and the loco, and 'instanter' 3 link for the MGR wagons; other freight vehicles mostly had screw couplings by the 80s/90s, but some departmental stock would still be around with instanters. Down side is that they are a faff to uncouple and more of one to couple up! HSTs, dmus, and mk1s within the rake will be fine with whatever couplers they came with; modern model passenger stock has spring loaded extendable couplers to maintain close corridor connections but be able to stretch to allow passage through sharp curves; yours won't even have to work for their living! Another alternative might be the Bedford type couplings, solid castings of the complete coupling between vehicles, both couplings, including brake pipes, which are bolted to the floor of each vehicle. These have the advantage of the best possible scale appearance and absolute prevention of buffer lock when propelling, but mean that stock so fitted has to be run in permanently coupled rakes with 'converter' vehicles at the outer ends so that locos can be attached and detached, and are very awkward to deal with if you want to remove a vehicle from a rake for any reason. Just a few musings to add to the very sensible advice already posted! Your very kind! I think for somebody coming back with so much expertise around and the high standards of many layouts on rmWeb, its can be a bit like the new boy at school! But im really impressed, with the prompt replies and the open sharing of info in a helpful and supportive way, thats really kind of everyone. Thanks for the background on EM, I understand that a bit better ... although I doubt my friends will ever stop convincing me that O gauge is the way forward! Lol! I take it OO gauge items will not run on EM track then, as presumably the rails are spaced that 1.5mm wider? Im looking at automatic couplings, certainly on the outer vehicles of coaches, and the fixed wagon rakes, along with those wagons that can be shunted. My aim is to try and avoid a 'hand in the sky' option, and all of these coupling methods have some negatives, its a case of finding level ground, so I can accept a small hinderance on visible issues. One thought is to go with Kadee's as i've some experience of those on the O gauge stock. I do not particularly like them on locos, as they are only prototypically right for 66s, but again its about compromise. Things like the HAAs I may well couple with 3-link chains between the inner vehicles, as they will not be split up normally (or semi-permanently couple them in 10 vehicle rakes). My thought is that my proposed HST set would be permanently coupled too for the same reason, although that will be necessary to do push-pull. Can you give me some more info on the Bedford couplings you mention? Thanks Richie Edited June 19, 2017 by Richie Kynaston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Kynaston Posted June 19, 2017 Author Share Posted June 19, 2017 E - close coupling coaches Have a look at http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/1432/entry-12702-close-coupling-mixed-rakes-of-Bachmann-and-hornbyairfix-coaches/ and http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/114179-Hornby-couplings-close-coupling-nem-pocket/ We have standardised on the Hornbys on Bachmann Mk1s except for the TPOs and sleepers which have a different close coupling mechanism and are better with the Rocos Have also retro fitted Keen systems close coupling mechs to a couple of older Replica/Mainline coaches and they work well too Kind regards Phil Phil - thanks for the links. I've also been looking at your Abbotswood videos. Wonderful layout, if I could get to a quality of half of that i'd be really happy! That is OO gauge I presume? Do you mind if i ask what radius your curves are at either end please? Richie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 The baseboard ideas looks great, it gives an ability to put scenery below as well as above the tracks, below track scenery is amazingly rare in UK Lots of stations have rivers and roads beneath them, Pickering has a river under the platform Goathland has a river under the goods yard pointwork, Stroud has platforms on a viaduct over a road.. Small bridges may be more effective than large as small bridges are surprisingly large and big ones absolutely monstrous in 00 "Is there any difference in the running quality between Code 75 and Code 100?" Not quite that simple, Peco Streamline is far better engineered than most code 100 and will allow lots of stock to run which does not work on other code 100, so if you go code 100 buy the real thing not cheap tat like I bought a few years ago. Nothing runs well when the flanges bash the sleepers every few mm, so you will need to check the flanges of everything you buy if you go code 75. There is bound to be unsold new stock around which wont run on code 75 but fortunately Hornby do replacement rolling stock wheels which even fit 1960s Triang, so its Lima and Lima derived stock to be wary of. As I said earlier my experience is traction tyres make the track dirty so I would suggest avoiding traction tyres and re wheeling any traction tyres locos with non groove wheels and doubling up on power bogies to get the haulage power back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Kynaston Posted June 19, 2017 Author Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) "Is there any difference in the running quality between Code 75 and Code 100?" Not quite that simple, Peco Streamline is far better engineered than most code 100 and will allow lots of stock to run which does not work on other code 100, so if you go code 100 buy the real thing not cheap tat like I bought a few years ago. Nothing runs well when the flanges bash the sleepers every few mm, so you will need to check the flanges of everything you buy if you go code 75. There is bound to be unsold new stock around which wont run on code 75 but fortunately Hornby do replacement rolling stock wheels which even fit 1960s Triang, so its Lima and Lima derived stock to be wary of. As I said earlier my experience is traction tyres make the track dirty so I would suggest avoiding traction tyres and re wheeling any traction tyres locos with non groove wheels and doubling up on power bogies to get the haulage power back Thanks David, Ok, im starting to understand that a bit now! Thank you. What kind of rail does EM gauge use, or is it the same, just the spacing is different? If I went with Code 75 and could end up rewheeling quite a few models anyway, then EM is perhaps a bit more attractive! I meant to pick up on your traction tyres comment - are they not used at all now then, or is it personal preference that you say avoid them? Im guessing most locos are still single power, single dummy on the bogies - how do you go about powering the dummy bogie, pick up a spare power one from somewhere? What are the Bachmann 08s like for running quality - I assume they are all wheel pickup? I recall my old Hornby 08 wasnt too bad, but have a very loud rattle to the motor! I seem to recall there was a chap or company many years ago, that made replacement traction equipment (ie centre motor with a flywheel, feeling to both bogies powered and pickups on all wheels) for many models, cant remember what their name was, but I recall one of the magazines, it may have been the Model Rail insert in RAIL in those days, tried one and described them as costly but amazing running quality and so smooth and slow. Does anything like that exist today? Right, well as im on nights again tonight, time to go an mull this over in bed! I doubt im going to sleep in this heat, so might as well put the time to some use! Although that may generate more questions! Thanks to all of you - please keep the replies, comments, thoughts and suggestions coming! Richie Edited June 19, 2017 by Richie Kynaston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 If I were starting now, I would probably use EM rather than 00. Many of us are stuck with 00 for several of reasons: Re-wheeling all our stock would take a long time. Some axles could simply be widened but others require replacement which could also be expensive. 00 track is more readily available. I have 30 points on my layout. That would have cost me significantly more with EM & the visual benefits are more noticeable on pointwork. All my points are off-scene. I think EM uses the same rail as 00 but with 1.7mm wider gauge. 00 stock is readily available. You should be able to buy a new loco & run it straight away. If you needed to re-gauge it to EM you would need to spend some time doing this first. Most diesel locos now have central motors with a flywheel providing drive to both bogies. My Bachmann 08s run nicely. Hornby's Railroad 08 has their old mechanism, The new one has frames with outside con rods like the prototype. Steam locos are now loco-drive. I believe the argument of better performance was the same one which was used when switching to tender drive in the 70s. Sounds a bit like UK the government to me. Not many modern locos use traction tyres. Extra weight seems to modern way to achieve traction. Replacing plastic wagon wheels with metal ones is common practice too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold john new Posted June 19, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) Reading this thread and looking back at your OP It appears you have modelled before but are out of touch with the latest developments. I can also see that you are keen to develop and have the space for something quite large. My suggestion though is the opposite for a first go, do something small as a first attempt, perhaps even just a 4ft square set track layout and get your skills back up on general modelling. At the same time visit a few shows and read widely, especially on the prototype, and decide exactly what you want. Starting a big project as a first go and then finding the snags and flaws from things you later find out Is disheartening. If you want to learn detailing etc., buy a few cheap 2nd hand items and add a few details to those. I now have a similar, but not identical dilemma. Would like to work in OO, have neither the space nor the cash with current prices as they are. I'm not new to modelling but as a consequence fancied a go at a small US layout in N. So much has changed regarding couplings since I regularly helped on N gauge club layouts in the past I have a rapid learning curve to come on deciding which of the several coupling systems to adopt. At the Mere show on Sunday for example there was some US outline stock for sale 2nd hand, about half was Rapido type the other micro-trains (all the freight stock)! Suggest therefore start small with tension locks, get into the hobby again with something you can complete, and then plan the 2nd larger project. Edited June 19, 2017 by john new Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Kynaston Posted June 19, 2017 Author Share Posted June 19, 2017 If I were starting now, I would probably use EM rather than 00. Many of us are stuck with 00 for several of reasons: Re-wheeling all our stock would take a long time. Some axles could simply be widened but others require replacement which could also be expensive. 00 track is more readily available. I have 30 points on my layout. That would have cost me significantly more with EM & the visual benefits are more noticeable on pointwork. All my points are off-scene. I think EM uses the same rail as 00 but with 1.7mm wider gauge. 00 stock is readily available. You should be able to buy a new loco & run it straight away. If you needed to re-gauge it to EM you would need to spend some time doing this first. Most diesel locos now have central motors with a flywheel providing drive to both bogies. My Bachmann 08s run nicely. Hornby's Railroad 08 has their old mechanism, The new one has frames with outside con rods like the prototype. Steam locos are now loco-drive. I believe the argument of better performance was the same one which was used when switching to tender drive in the 70s. Sounds a bit like UK the government to me. Not many modern locos use traction tyres. Extra weight seems to modern way to achieve traction. Replacing plastic wagon wheels with metal ones is common practice too. Hi Pete, Thanks for that, although im not sure if your making the case for OO or EM!! I've given up trying to sleep, too hot! But it has set me thinking about a few things, and I must admit I'd not thought about going down the EM road until Hayfield mentioned it. Looking at this picture on the em70s website, yes I can see the difference that is being talked about with regards to sleeper spacing, and the potential benefits. Its mainly just building the pointwork that is the cause for concern there. Reading this thread and looking back at your OP It appears you have modelled before but are out of touch with the latest developments. I can also see that you are keen to develop and have the space for something quite large. My suggestion though is the opposite for a first go, do something small as a first attempt, perhaps even just a 4ft square set track layout and get your skills back up on general modelling. At the same time visit a few shows and read widely, especially on the prototype, and decide exactly what you want. Starting a big project as a first go and then finding the snags and flaws from things you later find out Is disheartening. If you want to learn detailing etc., buy a few cheap 2nd hand items and add a few details to those. I now have a similar, but not identical dilemma. Would like to work in OO, have neither the space nor the cash with current prices as they are. I'm not new to modelling but as a consequence fancied a go at a small US layout in N. So much has changed regarding couplings since I regularly helped on N gauge club layouts in the past I have a rapid learning curve to come on deciding which of the several coupling systems to adopt. At the Mere show on Sunday for example there was some US outline stock for sale 2nd hand, about half was Rapido type the other micro-trains (all the freight stock)! Suggest therefore start small with tension locks, get into the hobby again with something you can complete, and then plan the 2nd larger project. Hello John, Thanks for your feedback, yes your quite right I have modelled before, but in all honesty it was more of a train set than a model of a railway. Im looking for this one to be the latter. As per other comments, yours provide food for thought, and yes I can see then sense in doing as you say, so will think that one over more. Richie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Phil Bullock Posted June 19, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 19, 2017 Phil - thanks for the links. I've also been looking at your Abbotswood videos. Wonderful layout, if I could get to a quality of half of that i'd be really happy! That is OO gauge I presume? Do you mind if i ask what radius your curves are at either end please? Richie Hi Richie Many thanks for your kind comments re Abbotswood. It is our pride and joy and is about to be rebuilt - at which time we will correct some of the issues hopefully So track - Peco code 75, electrofrog points Curves - too sharp! Wanted nothing sharper than 36" but have ended up nearer 30" and it looks too sharp, particularly the transition from the junction in to the curve That's one of the main reasons for the rebuild! Theres a lot of really good advice on this thread and elsewhere but we have had to balance our time and decide where in the layout to invest it - so rolling stock in particular has been a major priority Don't be afraid to make similar decisions but be sure you are going to be comfortable with any compromises you accept. There are those on here who continually pull my leg for not going EM but I value my sanity.....!!!! All that stock to regauge - and tension lock couplers on EM would seem rather retrograde.... So have fun! Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Kynaston Posted June 19, 2017 Author Share Posted June 19, 2017 Hi Richie Many thanks for your kind comments re Abbotswood. It is our pride and joy and is about to be rebuilt - at which time we will correct some of the issues hopefully So track - Peco code 75, electrofrog points Curves - too sharp! Wanted nothing sharper than 36" but have ended up nearer 30" and it looks too sharp, particularly the transition from the junction in to the curve That's one of the main reasons for the rebuild! Theres a lot of really good advice on this thread and elsewhere but we have had to balance our time and decide where in the layout to invest it - so rolling stock in particular has been a major priority Don't be afraid to make similar decisions but be sure you are going to be comfortable with any compromises you accept. There are those on here who continually pull my leg for not going EM but I value my sanity.....!!!! All that stock to regauge - and tension lock couplers on EM would seem rather retrograde.... So have fun! Phil Thanks Phil, Thats really helpful, im looking at potentially 48" or 60" curves on the layout, in the main - Im lucky to have a large basement at my disposal, so hope to be able to create curves that sweep through the countryside with the bogies looking like they are hardly moving! Plus mine is very definately a stay at home! Do you mind if i ask you say "at which time we will correct some of the issues hopefully" other than the tightness of the curves, would you mind if I ask what issues you have? Not from the point of wishing to highlight them, but just wondering if there's some in there i might make and could avoid ... or at least give thought to! I must admit, having not thought about EM til this morning, it seems to be becoming a bigger decision! Cheers Richie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Phil Bullock Posted June 19, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 19, 2017 Happy to help Richie! These are our other lessons ...we are a portable layout with DCC sound so some things become more critical but general principles apply....are you contemplating DCC? Point motors - money spent on good motors is well invested! We settled on tortoises after initially installing gaugemasters Points - wire them properly! Don't rely on the blades for contact - bridge the fixed part of the blades to the stock rails with a wire, and isolate and power the frogs separately. Your choice of how to do the latter - we started off using the switches on both gaugemaster and tortoise motors but with the layout being portable alignment is key and was getting disturbed - frog juicers have worked very well for us but its your choice. Power bus - we used the Express models soderless bus kit -excellent. Uses automotive type plug in connectors which make it easy to disconnect one feed at a time to identify shorts. And you cannot have too many power feeds - best not rely on fishplates for conductivity Signals - DO NOT leave etched brass signals on a portable layout when you take it out! Much heartache will inevitably follow.... Pick ups - a loco cannot have too many pickups. On diesels traditional back of wheel rubbing ones work well - unfortunately one manufacturer has forgotten this recently and either economised on number or tried to use brass bush on split axle systems. Class 40 and Class 43 warships in particular in my experience although later examples of the new release 40s have the issue rectified. Rolling stock wheels - plastic are banned, metal only - and check back to backs for reliable running, manufacturers are not consistent. Coaches - Bachmann coach bogie screws are too tight, slacken off by half a turn or so to allow tramp/yaw. Am sure that isn't everything - will add more if it comes to mind - but am sure others will chime in too Cheers Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Phil Bullock Posted June 19, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 19, 2017 And here are the operator tips for Abbotswood OPERATING ABBOTSWOOD.docx Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now