Moving from Peco Code 55 to British Finescale Finetrax Code 40

[n9]

I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but in this recent post in the general modelling forum, it was suggested I try to get the views of those in 2FS. Perhaps some of you have experienced these things too?

 

I've been quite disappointed with Peco's Code 55 - I think it was @Izzy (sorry if it wasn't you!) who warned me a while back that I might never be happy with it, and I think they were right, because after 18 months of work on my layout, I'm now considering starting over and replacing all of my Peco Code 55 track with Finetrax Code 40.

 

Consequently, I have a ton of questions about Finetrax, and will likely have a ton more as I proceed.

 

So I guess the three most pressing questions I have right now are:

 

1. Are you guys OK with me posting these/those questions here or is there somewhere more appropriate?

 

2. My main disappointment with Peco Code 55 is the bouncing and swinging I get from locos and stock when they traverse frogs. All Peco Code 55 points and crossings suffer from this, but their double slips seem particularly bad. Here's a video I posted showing my 03 alone and then pulling some 4-wheelers across a double slip purposely taken off my layout and placed on a flat surface:

 

 

My better half says she thinks it's cute how my 03 bounces and swings its nose to and fro around half a centimetre as it crosses the slip. I'm reminded of watching something out of the Paris Dakar. So, if I take the plunge with Finetrax Code 40, how much better is this bouncing and wobbling going to be, if at all?

 

3. All of my locos and stock are RTR and have been bought new in the last 18 months, and I won't be running anything older. (At a guess I think that means tooling no older than around 2010ish?) It's currently all from Farish, Dapol, Peco, Revolution; mostly era 5 diesels, the odd steamer, and pulling a mix of passenger and freight stock. How likely am I to need to change wheelsets?

 

Thank you!

[Southernfrance]

I had the same problems with locos, and particularly longer four wheeled vans, dipping into the gaps in the frogso on Code 55, but have cured it easily by making inserts from plasticard for each frog. This cures the bouncing.  I would have used Finetrax had I had the time but with over 50 points on my layout and about 50m of visible track I thought life was too short to go that route.

 

Dave

[n9]

57 minutes ago, Southernfrance said:

I had the same problems with locos, and particularly longer four wheeled vans, dipping into the gaps in the frogso on Code 55, but have cured it easily by making inserts from plasticard for each frog. This cures the bouncing.  I would have used Finetrax had I had the time but with over 50 points on my layout and about 50m of visible track I thought life was too short to go that route.

 

Dave

Indeed, thank you. I have been playing with shims, but while that can help cure vertical bounce, from what I've gathered in previous replies, it's tinkering with the flangeways that would curtail the horizontal slaloming in the video. Plasticard again might help there, but its all work that has be performed on every single crossing, and that's in addition to other mods I already make to Peco's turnouts. It's all work that's adding up. I've plans to extend my layout for instance, so this would be repeating ad infinitum. If going Finetrax Code 40 means I no longer have to worry about the oversized gaps and flangeways, then that's a big argument in it's favour.

[Jan W]

I’m afraid that the finetrax system still has oversized flangeways.

The rail section (code 40) may be to scale but the flangeways are still quite generous.

Problem is that the back to back dimensions of rtr rolling stock is set to work well with the coarse standards of the mainstream railsystems. Often approx 7.3-7.4mm

In order to allow stock with these back to back dimensions to traverse the finetrax points the flangeways have to be approx 0.85 mm if I’m correct.

On the finetrax website you can download printable templates, you can then compare them with your code 55 points.

 

Jan

[Kris]

3 hours ago, n9 said:

 

3. All of my locos and stock are RTR and have been bought new in the last 18 months, and I won't be running anything older. (At a guess I think that means tooling no older than around 2010ish?) It's currently all from Farish, Dapol, Peco, Revolution; mostly era 5 diesels, the odd steamer, and pulling a mix of passenger and freight stock. How likely am I to need to change wheelsets?

 

Your stock will be fine, there should be no need to change any wheel sets.

[woodenhead]

Before abandoning your existing layout why not purchase a couple of points, a slip or a crossing and some plain train from Finetrax.

 

Build a plank and test it delivers the running you want.  No point dumping a perfectly good Peco layout if the end result is still not what you want to achieve.

[Chris Higgs]

As mentioned its not just the flangeways on the points, its the relationship between those and the back-to-back your wheelsets are set to. So you would be wise to 

 

1. build a test plank using Finetrax.

2. try adjusting the Back-to-back on your stock.

 

Be warned though, the Finetrax is gong to make your Peco track look c**p (especially the points), regardless of relative running qualities.

 

 Chris

[CF MRC]

Back in 1978, Keith Armes solved the problem of working slips on Chiltern Green by tightening the gauge to 8.9mm; this then tightens the check rail and crossing nose clearances so that the wheels fit the track better. It would be good if the Finetrax turnouts and crossings did the same. 

Jim Snowden did the same in O gauge Finescale which has a horribly sloppy set of standards. 
 

Tim

Edited December 30, 2023 by CF MRC

[n9]

 

3 hours ago, Jan W said:

I’m afraid that the finetrax system still has oversized flangeways.

The rail section (code 40) may be to scale but the flangeways are still quite generous.

Problem is that the back to back dimensions of rtr rolling stock is set to work well with the coarse standards of the mainstream railsystems. Often approx 7.3-7.4mm

In order to allow stock with these back to back dimensions to traverse the finetrax points the flangeways have to be approx 0.85 mm if I’m correct.

On the finetrax website you can download printable templates, you can then compare them with your code 55 points.

 

Jan

Thank you. To my eyes, and given one spec comprises a photo (Peco) and the other a diagram (Finetrax), the Peco Code 55 Slip looks to have a larger "leap of faith" (as someone else put it) as well as, dare I say, a much crasser design when compared to the Finetrax Code 40 slip.

 

2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Before abandoning your existing layout why not purchase a couple of points, a slip or a crossing and some plain train from Finetrax.

 

Build a plank and test it delivers the running you want.  No point dumping a perfectly good Peco layout if the end result is still not what you want to achieve.

 

Great timing @woodenhead! Because I believe this is.... my 200th post!!! Time for that initiation!

 

To answer your post though, the test is certainly Step 2. Before splashing out a couple of hundred smackers on a slip, a turnout, some flex, joiners, shipping, customs duties and import fees, I thought I'd first try to get the views of people who may have actually tried Finetrax Code 40, because if they say there is little to no improvement in running, I probably don't need to do the test.

 

2 hours ago, Chris Higgs said:

As mentioned its not just the flangeways on the points, its the relationship between those and the back-to-back your wheelsets are set to. So you would be wise to 

 

1. build a test plank using Finetrax.

2. try adjusting the Back-to-back on your stock.

 

Be warned though, the Finetrax is gong to make your Peco track look c**p (especially the points), regardless of relative running qualities.

 

 Chris

Don't worry, I already think it looks nothing special. I also think that while it may perform something of a minor miracle in accommodating a lack of wheel standards and trends spanning half a century or more (which is certainly to Peco's credit,) the performance of that track with today's stock leaves an awful lot to be desired.

[woodenhead]

Here is an example of Finetrax (I believe), Alston N gauge finescale, I would say the DMU is showing a bit of wobble.

 

 

 

And the start of this video from Wigan in 2022

 

There is still some movement on the locos as they move, but you've got to bear in mind the slightest imperfection in the laying of track is going to show up as even a 1mm imbalance between one track and the next is going to be massive in N gauge compared to OO.

 

I guess it comes down to what you can tolerate, asking people here will draw various opinions but through their filters not yours - one person's OK is another person's nightmare scenario.

 

I've seen Alston in the flesh, it's a lovely model and it did make me want to consider Finetrax, except I already had a lot of points and track available to me and it seemed an unnecessary expense at the time.

Edited December 30, 2023 by woodenhead

[Izzy]

Welcome to the present day world of N where while the general standard of rolling stock is leaps and bounds above the past the wheel and track standards are just the same. Yes, the wheels look better, finer, but the actual core standards are the same due to the desire to make it railable fairly easily and negotiate tight radius curves. 
 

You are in the place many have stood with a desire to have better quality running without too much hassle, the no-man’s land between standard N and 2FS. Until recent times there wasn’t British Finescale, but this in itself only really deals with looks rather than track or wheel standards. 
 

What you need is 2FS. Here is a short video of my Hunslet 05 going through a crossover comprising of an A6 and single slip. It’s about the same size as a 03/04. 
 

Is it harder work than N? It can be, but not necessarily. And nothing is harder than buying stuff that proves disappointing. There’s drop-in wheels for most Farish diesels, something similar coming for Dapol I understand, while British Finescale points for 2FS (including single/double slips and diamonds) are available. 
 

Bob

[woodenhead]

@Izzy Ultimately for the OP I think is the direction sought, but it's a journey to knowing that is the direction.

[AndrueC]

I've just run my class 121 and can detect no wobble on my 14 degree radius code 80 Streamline turnouts. I mentioned in your other thread that wobble doesn't seem to be as much of a problem for me. I just looked at the code 55 turnout that I happen to have on standby for installation and I hadn't realised that there are actually design differences - it's not just that the rail is sunk deeper:

Code 55 is the top turnout. The frog area is has differences:

• Code 80 frog flares at the heel.
• Code 55 frog toe appears narrower with a more angular appearance.

 

Edited December 30, 2023 by AndrueC

[Klaus ojo]

Dear n9

a double slip is a complicated little thing and Peco´s one is not one of the worst, although designed to cope with oldest track and wheel standards.

With your high expectations: Have you ever considered to build your own turnout?

That is having 2 advantages: You are getting a better idea what is necessary to make a turnout work and you can do one to your very needs.

If you are designing your turnout with moveable wingrails (just like high speed turnouts of the prototype; or a moveable crossing vee ) you will be able to run without wobble - given that you are capable of building your trackwork that smooth.  (If you are having access to 2mm Scale association archives: In Magazine 6/1990 Brian Tilbury is showing his approach) I´ve attached a picture of my little experiment. You´ll need a special pivot bar or 2 drives to operate it. Do not add checkrails then.

The finetrax turnouts on Alston seem to be the older design with an inserted milled crossing. The new easy build (wooden sleeper!) turnouts are with a continous rail which may allow even better running properties. Worth a try.

I only know and like the 2mm FS version of both single and douple slip  (which is from the same manufacturer and basically the same design but with finer 2mmFS standards).

Klaus

Edited December 30, 2023 by Klaus ojo
picture

[VRBroadgauge]

Hand laid track (particularly finescale track) trumps commercial track in both appearance and performance. 
Code 40 rail whilst technically not to scale in most applications is a city block better than Code 55. I’m no Laurie Adams or Mick Simpson when it comes to laying track but I’d back mine against any commercial version. 
 

[n9]

15 hours ago, Izzy said:

Welcome to the present day world of N where while the general standard of rolling stock is leaps and bounds above the past the wheel and track standards are just the same. Yes, the wheels look better, finer, but the actual core standards are the same due to the desire to make it railable fairly easily and negotiate tight radius curves. 
 

You are in the place many have stood with a desire to have better quality running without too much hassle, the no-man’s land between standard N and 2FS. Until recent times there wasn’t British Finescale, but this in itself only really deals with looks rather than track or wheel standards. 
 

What you need is 2FS. Here is a short video of my Hunslet 05 going through a crossover comprising of an A6 and single slip. It’s about the same size as a 03/04. 
 

Is it harder work than N? It can be, but not necessarily. And nothing is harder than buying stuff that proves disappointing. There’s drop-in wheels for most Farish diesels, something similar coming for Dapol I understand, while British Finescale points for 2FS (including single/double slips and diamonds) are available. 
 

Bob

That video is just frog porn. The performance is perfect. Well done indeed!

 

Btw, couldn't help but hear The Twighlight Zone theme reading your reply. I'll compose some of my thoughts in a bit. Thank you!

[n9]

Thank you everyone for sharing your advice and suggestions. I appreciate you taking the time very much.

 

My thoughts, for what it's worth, are:

 

I think I'd be quite happy if the majority of my locos/stock showed the kind of wobble shared in @woodenhead's videos of Alston. I'd probably still have a go at improving the running, but mostly because I like to fiddle with things and have a stab at fixing them if it's within my somewhat green skillset. But I could definitely live with it as a happy medium between model and reality, especially as it wouldn't constrain what I can run in the way that 2FS might. My concern would be if 4-wheeled stock behaved the same, because from my experience, bogied stock tends to (but not always) fare a lot better on those bumps. So this would definitely be a reason to get some Finetrax track and test. What I don't think I can live with is the sort of swing demonstrated by my 03 on the slip in my earlier video - the amplitude of that swing I think is getting on for 5mm, and as has been pointed out, when 1mm in N is a huge distance, I think the result just looks comical. That slip is the straw that broke the camel's back, because up until that point I'd accepted, or resigned myself to, shimming every single Peco crossing. (In addition to removing "toy" plastic, and getting rid of the Unifrog in their Unifrogs.)

 

16 hours ago, Klaus ojo said:

Have you ever considered to build your own turnout?

While I have replaced or rebuilt portions of rail in some of Peco's frogs (and been astounded at how forgiving wheels have been with my results!) completely building track from scratch I think is something I might take on a bit further down the line, but thank you!

 

 

To conclude, I see these choices:

- Somehow fix the slip (I have some pointers already), and resign myself to everything Peco.

- Bin the slip (annoyingly I have two because space trumped realism), redesign my layout, and resign myself to Peco.

- Go with Finetrax if tests are favourable, redesign my layout, and probably be much happier.

- Go with 2FS, deal with its consequences both positive and negative, redesign my layout, and probably be much happier.

 

If I'd already built a few layouts, I think 2FS would win. With that not being the case, I think the answer is likely one of the first 3 with 2FS being the fallback. @Izzy's video remains a very powerful argument though!

 

Much to ponder.

 

In case I don't get the opportunity later, Happy New Year!

 

Edited December 31, 2023 by n9

[woodenhead]

Can you do your pondering a little quieter then, you had me on the 2mm Finescale site last night and I was watching someone begin to build a Nigel Hunt Jubilee chassis.

 

What fresh hell am I setting myself up for!

[Harlequin]

17 hours ago, Izzy said:

[snip]

You are in [snip] the no-man’s land between standard N and 2FS. Until recent times there wasn’t British Finescale, but this in itself only really deals with looks rather than track or wheel standards. 

[snip]

 

Sounds like there might be a market opportunity here that Wayne @ BritishFinescale might be able to fill and profit from.

 

He has done turnouts in the "OO-SF" (16.2mm) gauge in 4mm scale which has a similar purpose.

 

[njee20]

20 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

Sounds like there might be a market opportunity here that Wayne @ BritishFinescale might be able to fill and profit from.

 

He has done turnouts in the "OO-SF" (16.2mm) gauge in 4mm scale which has a similar purpose.

 

When originally crafting the range Wayne did ask on the n gauge forum whether people wanted tighter 0.85mm flangeways or wider flangeways to support nearly all RTR models without adjustment. I do recall it was quite close, but wider flangeways won out.
 

I’m not convinced the market for N is big enough to build a range to suit people like the OP, those who value smooth running over all else, but don’t necessarily want to go 2FS. On the Venn diagram of track fidelity I think that’s a very small intersection! 

[Chris Higgs]

27 minutes ago, njee20 said:

When originally crafting the range Wayne did ask on the n gauge forum whether people wanted tighter 0.85mm flangeways or wider flangeways to support nearly all RTR models without adjustment. I do recall it was quite close, but wider flangeways won out.
 

I’m not convinced the market for N is big enough to build a range to suit people like the OP, those who value smooth running over all else, but don’t necessarily want to go 2FS. On the Venn diagram of track fidelity I think that’s a very small intersection! 

 

As I understand it, the Finetrax N gauge range uses asymetric flangeways:

 

" 0.85mm flangeways through the crossing frog/wing rails. 1mm flangeways at the check rails." (quote from Wayne Kinney himself on another forum).

 

As I think that is quite a bit finer than the Peco equivalent, the theory says better running should be expected, and is compatible with 7.4mm BtoB. A 7.15mm flangeway gap with 7.4mm BtoB  doesn;t give much scope for 'waggling'. If as a test you build a FInetrax point and find it isn't any better, I expect you can just sell it on on ebay to get most of your money back. Asymetric flangeways might be a more complex issue on a slip than a plain point.

 

If you don't like the asymetric flangeways, you could always slice the checkrail chairs off and reposition them with a finer value. 

 

Chris 

 

 

 

[Chris Higgs]

11 minutes ago, Chris Higgs said:

 

As I understand it, the Finetrax N gauge range uses asymetric flangeways:

 

" 0.85mm flangeways through the crossing frog/wing rails. 1mm flangeways at the check rails." (quote from Wayne Kinney himself on another forum).

 

As I think that is quite a bit finer than the Peco equivalent, the theory says better running should be expected, and is compatible with 7.4mm BtoB. A 7.15mm flangeway gap with 7.4mm BtoB  doesn;t give much scope for 'waggling'. If as a test you build a FInetrax point and find it isn't any better, I expect you can just sell it on on ebay to get most of your money back. Asymetric flangeways might be a more complex issue on a slip than a plain point.

 

If you don't like the asymetric flangeways, you could always slice the checkrail chairs off and reposition them with a finer value. 

 

Chris 

 

 

 

 

you might also want to read this: 

Explains why if you have a flangeway gap of 0.85mm and a wheel tread (not flange) width of 1.7mm  or greater your wheels will not drop into the gap at the frog.

 

Chris  

[woodenhead]

I have a plan for a small exchange sidings scenario using Finetrax as a means to test it out before deciding to go all in.

 

However, it is New Years Eve and Mrs W is demanding I put the computer down, I was also eyeing up a replace battery for my PC as well as a RAM upgrade and maybe a bigger SSD.

 

Ah well, time to have a NYE tipple, it's a hard life.

[n9]

6 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I have a plan for a small exchange sidings scenario using Finetrax as a means to test it out before deciding to go all in.

 

However, it is New Years Eve and Mrs W is demanding I put the computer down, I was also eyeing up a replace battery for my PC as well as a RAM upgrade and maybe a bigger SSD.

 

Ah well, time to have a NYE tipple, it's a hard life.

Hahaha! I was about to challenge you saying I'll commit to 2FS if you do and make it a New Year's Resolution. But then sanity kicked in. Maybe after the bubbly I'll be less reasonable again.

[woodenhead]

A glass of hot mulled wine, a wife sized brandy and coke followed by half a bottle of fizzy good wine and I am up for a new year self build track challenge.