Jump to content
 

Is trackwork the poor relation of the hobby ?


Recommended Posts

In response to Autocoach's comment, I have seen at least two excellent layouts* using a combination of both SMP bullhead plain track and Peco code 75 turnouts.

 

The downside is the height differences of the sleeper strip (SMP being thinner than Peco) but by modifying the sub-road bed this can be managed. Not ideal but the appearance is excellent and I wish that I had discovered this method before building Beaminster Road.

 

Tim

 

*one of the layouts was featured in MRJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a thread on Peco Code 83: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/37644-peco-code-83-track/

 

I have mused in the past about how widespread it is in NA. I can't recall ever seeing it. Pretty much every NA H0 railroad "model" I've ever seen (maybe I need to get out more) has used Peco Code 100 points and Atlas track. From the pictures I've seen, it has a pleasing look.

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to Autocoach's comment, I have seen at least two excellent layouts* using a combination of both SMP bullhead plain track and Peco code 75 turnouts.

 

The downside is the height differences of the sleeper strip (SMP being thinner than Peco) but by modifying the sub-road bed this can be managed. Not ideal but the appearance is excellent and I wish that I had discovered this method before building Beaminster Road.

 

Tim

 

*one of the layouts was featured in MRJ

 

Last weekend I looked at the Exactoscale track, at 1.6mm thick will match up with Peco. Comes in packs of 2 meters, bullhead rail needs threading on to it and you will have to cut the webs for curved track. Also need ballasting. Has a more solid feeling to it that SMP and C&L track

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last weekend I looked at the Exactoscale track, at 1.6mm thick will match up with Peco. Comes in packs of 2 meters, bullhead rail needs threading on to it and you will have to cut the webs for curved track. Also need ballasting. Has a more solid feeling to it that SMP and C&L track

 

I wondered if anyone has any photos of this track? Exactoscale website gallery is currently not available.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Len Wheal was involved with the original C&L track (may be when it was K&L) so its out of the same parentage as C&L as for wheels it will be OK for locos and rolling stock with modern (NMRA standards) or finescale wheels, I have built turnouts for people who use modern RTR locos and rolling stock using C&L plastic chairs and sleepers without any problems, so I expect Exactoscale will be the same.

 

The benefit is that if you wish you can use the odd 1.6mm copperclad sleeper with a small piece of brass shim between the rail and sleeper to maintain sleeper heights, if you want a belt and braces approach.

 

Exacroscale are plastic sleepers only, Thicker sleepers 1.6mm (as against about 0.8mm for SMP & C&L flexi track) C&L do both thin and thick sleepers. They have a large range of chairs 2, 3 & 4 bolt normal chairs and slide chairs as C&L, but also smaller bridge chairs, switch rail and crossing chairs. I have just brought these but not used them yet.

 

I guess RTP is ready to paint as the sleepers come in grey plastic. The turnout pack is a little dearer at £6 but comes with 3 sprues of 64 sleepers, the longest being 86mm (appx) long. C&L come in packs of 50 longest being 60mm (appx)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The Exactoscale track does look good but the website is short on detail about the point kits. Do they have plastic sleepers or PCB?

 

They don't do point kits in '00' as such, but they do do all the bits that you would need (see John's post above) including planed switches (A,B & C @ £8/£10 a pair) (see John's post above) but they don't do pre-assembled crossing assemblies in nickel-silver (get those from from C&L). Or you could build them in copperclad and use the chairs split and glued on cosmetically. If you are planning to match up with the Exacto 'FastTrack' you would well served to add small brass shim pieces under the rail before soldering up. If you don't (not a problem) you would have to pack up the whole point assembly to get the rail height to match. I'll look out some snaps (from mine or CK's) later.

 

I'm a 'track geek' so I enjoy all this sort of stuff!

 

 

Also the term "RTP" is used in this thread when referring to buildings - what does RTP mean - is it "ready to paint"?

Ian

 

I always thought that it meant 'ready to plonk'!

 

Many thanks John...Much appreciated. I does look good. Seeing as it is really intended for P4 finescale mdelling, I'm just wondering if 'normal' modern '00' Bachmann and Hornby flanges clear the chairs?

 

You're welcome Larry. I'll do a 'wheel check' with Horby and Bachy locos and some stock and see. (I do recall that some Bachmann locos misbehave on C&L.) I'll get back with more later.

 

The 'FastTrack' is certainly quality and the best that I've ever worked with.

 

regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You're welcome Larry. I'll do a 'wheel check' with Horby and Bachy locos and some stock and see. (I do recall that some Bachmann locos misbehave on C&L.) I'll get back with more later.

 

The 'FastTrack' is certainly quality and the best that I've ever worked with.

 

regards

 

Some not so fine wheels bounce of C&L chairs, no idea if that is the same for Exactoscale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. My layout uses a combination of Exactoscale oo plain track, with Peco code 75 points. Perfectly acceptable compromise to me.

The only thing that hasn't run properly so far, are a couple of Lima mk3 coaches, with original 'pizza cutter' wheelsets.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

post-7202-0-88839400-1330271226.jpg

post-7202-0-04494500-1330271251.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Some not so fine wheels bounce of C&L chairs, no idea if that is the same for Exactoscale.

Older wheels will definitely have a problem with C&L OO gauge bullhead track, but the oldest ones will have a problem with virtually anything except Triang Super 4 and possibly Peco Code 100. A friend of mine in the village who's planning an OO layout picked up an old Triang 2-BIL from the 1960s last weekend at the Toy Fair in Newton Abbot. When I looked at it yesterday, I found that the flanges fouled even Peco Cold 75 flat bottom track (I have offered to try to turn them down for him when the time comes!).

 

As regards more recent locos and stock, virtually everything (except Lima) will be OK on SMP flexitrack (either Mark 1 or Mark 2 SMP). Most stuff will run OK on C&L flexitrack as well, although there are some Bachmann steam locos that have a problem with flanges bumping/fouling on the tops of the chairs. This is a pity, as I think C&L is superior to SMP. I found out about this the hard way, having built both 'Engine Wood' and 'Bleakhouse Road' using mainly C&L flexitrack.

 

It's a bit bizarre, though. All Bachmann diesels that I have seem to run fine on C&L. Some steam locos, such as their pannier and Jinty models, are fine as well. The Ivatt 2-6-2 is problematic, as the bogie/pony wheel flanges touch the chairs, but the driving wheels seem OK. Changing them for Gibsons is probably the obvious solution.

 

I then found that my Crab and BR Standard 5 were going to be a problem - flanges fouling and consequently noisy (although no electrical pick up problems were noted). I rang Alan Gibson a few years ago (when it was still Alan running it), and asked for some drop-in wheels for the two locos. 'What gauge?'he asked. When I replied 'for OO' he was surprised, but after having the problem explained he was happy to supply the wheels.

 

One of the oddest was the Bachmann WD 2-8-0, where the driving wheels were OK but the bogie and tender wheels were not. They were replaced with Markits ones, which had to be re-assembled on the Bachmann axles IIRC to fit the tender properly.

 

From what I have seen, the same problem is not extant on the Exactoscale fast track in OO. IIRC I asked Len Newman about it a while ago - it would certainly pay the person who made the original query to give Len a call.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Older wheels will definitely have a problem with C&L OO gauge bullhead track, but the oldest ones will have a problem with virtually anything except Triang Super 4 and possibly Peco Code 100. A friend of mine in the village who's planning an OO layout picked up an old Triang 2-BIL from the 1960s last weekend at the Toy Fair in Newton Abbot. When I looked at it yesterday, I found that the flanges fouled even Peco Cold 75 flat bottom track (I have offered to try to turn them down for him when the time comes!).

 

Speaking from experiance of many years ago, when the time comes to turn down the wheels, you will almost certainly first need to anieal them, they are sinnerted iron. Best Wishes, Mick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely like the look of the Exactoscale tie strip. Are the chairs patterned after BR practice or one of the predecessor railways.

 

I will have to figure out how to order. Also the I understand why the half meter lengths of BH rail would fit into the post where the 1 meter lengths being oversize would be prohibitive to ship.

 

I was experimenting on some code 70 FB rail last night filing the bottom web to make it appear more BH.

 

I knew that regular Peco Code 75 is FB not BH. North American HO code 70 track (Model Engineering) just looks to spindly with very narrow ties (sleepers) and would not be usable.

 

Some one asked about how well received Peco Code 83 HO track is in North America. My friend who owns a US hobby shop sells quite a bit of it in spite of the higher prices. It sells at just slightly lower volume than Atlas Code 83 and Micro Engineering and ahead of Walther's/Shinohara. Peco code 100 Steamline also sells very well at double the price of Atlas code 100 because it has the curved switches, slip switches and other shapes not readily available in the Atlas or set track (Bachmann) lines. Also the internal point throw locking is a plus for those who don't bother with electronic point control and just manually flip the switch point (Includes me).

Link to post
Share on other sites

post-1131-0-13223700-1330280894_thumb.jpg

 

Exactoscale 3 bolt (botton left) and bridge chairs, along with plastic locking fishplates. Forgot to take a photo of the slide chairs but the same quality. The plastic fishplates look prommising and will make a pleasent change from Peco N gauge plastic rail joiners

 

post-1131-0-49045700-1330280915_thumb.jpg

 

Left hand A, B & C switch chairs. Right 1:5, 6, 7, 8 &10 crossing chairs.

 

I have not used these yet and there are full instructions on the Exacto website http://www.exactosca...mtrackinst.html as to which chair to use depending of what size or turnout you are using (except on 00 gauge check rails where you must use ones with larger gaps).

 

To date I just cut C&L chairs either to fit or in half for cosmetic purposes, and to my un-trained eye they look fine. The bridge chairs will come in handy as will the half chairs on the crossing set. The first job is for the turnout to be functional so a few more slide chairs may be used as on the instructions show 7 slide chairs are used on a B7 turnout (I use 8)

 

They also do obtuce crossing chairs, 1:7 & 1:8 slip chairs and extra OCC for slip chairs

http://www.exactosca...k/4mmtrack.html

 

These should keep the rivet counters busy !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend of mine in the village who's planning an OO layout picked up an old Triang 2-BIL from the 1960s last weekend at the Toy Fair in Newton Abbot. When I looked at it yesterday, I found that the flanges fouled even Peco Cold 75 flat bottom track (I have offered to try to turn them down for him when the time comes!).

 

 

I have seen "finer" wheels for the Tri-ang Motor Bogies for sale (Ebay). Made from later Hornby Margate Wheels. (Possibly code 100?). I have not used these wheels.

 

LINK

Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely like the look of the Exactoscale tie strip. Are the chairs patterned after BR practice or one of the predecessor railways.

 

I will have to figure out how to order. Also the I understand why the half meter lengths of BH rail would fit into the post where the 1 meter lengths being oversize would be prohibitive to ship.

 

I was experimenting on some code 70 FB rail last night filing the bottom web to make it appear more BH.

 

I knew that regular Peco Code 75 is FB not BH. North American HO code 70 track (Model Engineering) just looks to spindly with very narrow ties (sleepers) and would not be usable.

 

Some one asked about how well received Peco Code 83 HO track is in North America. My friend who owns a US hobby shop sells quite a bit of it in spite of the higher prices. It sells at just slightly lower volume than Atlas Code 83 and Micro Engineering and ahead of Walther's/Shinohara. Peco code 100 Steamline also sells very well at double the price of Atlas code 100 because it has the curved switches, slip switches and other shapes not readily available in the Atlas or set track (Bachmann) lines. Also the internal point throw locking is a plus for those who don't bother with electronic point control and just manually flip the switch point (Includes me).

 

C&L post meter lengths but it has to go parcel post as the Royak Mail's max length in small packets is 900mm. I think Airmail is 600mm, though DHL or similar may have a better option

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

For those who do not like the thin sleepers on C&L and SMP flexitrack but long after scale width sleepers and the correct spacings here is a photo of Exactoscale Fast track bases

 

post-1131-0-96374400-1334250300_thumb.jpg

 

Top is SMP 00 gauge, middle Exactoscale in EM, bottom C&L also in EM. Sleepers are 1.6mm thick and should match up with Peco, available in 00, EM & P4 gauges. No excuse for not having good looking track

 

Just in case you are interested their turnout parts using the same thickness sleepers

 

post-1131-0-80880100-1334250579_thumb.jpg

 

The plastic fishplates are delightfull and look so much better than normal rail joiners

 

post-1131-0-16233500-1334250611.jpg

 

This shot shows off the special switch chairs, the system is very easy to use, and pre-made crossings and switch blades are available if you dont fancy making your own

 

post-1131-0-71965800-1334250771_thumb.jpg

 

Sorry for the quality of the photos

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its better to have the sleepers rigidly spaced as it makes it easy to lay nice straight track. To curve it you just use sidecutters to snip out the links on one side. If you want to respace the sleepers to suit a specific prototype just snip the links on both sides as needed,

Regards

Keith

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its better to have the sleepers rigidly spaced as it makes it easy to lay nice straight track. To curve it you just use sidecutters to snip out the links on one side. If you want to respace the sleepers to suit a specific prototype just snip the links on both sides as needed,

Regards

Keith

 

This is the reason I chose to use it on the straight sections of the filled yard, very easy to lay in a straight line, and quite robust.

 

post-340-0-76938200-1334337038_thumb.jpg

 

Cheers

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites

John - thanks for the pictures. It looks from the 1st one that the sleeper spacing on the Exactoscale is actually wider that the SMP and the spacing is rigid, not allowing flexing - is that so?

 

Rich

 

Well spotted, my SMP track must be 35+ years old. It may have changed now

 

SMP sleepers are 4mm wide and have 5mm gaps between the sleepers

 

C&L sleepers are 3.5mm wide and have 7mm gaps between the sleepers

 

Exactoscale sleepers are 3.25mm wide and have 6.7mm gaps between the sleepers

 

Just printed off a piece of plain track from Templot, the Exactoscale differs by about 1mm over the 8 sleeper pannel.

 

I am not expert enough to say what is correct and what is not, I am guessing that it is correct for BR period if not post grouping built track. Pre-grouping I believe varied from company to company, and in time periods and I guess between mainline / branch / sidings. Normally you can find a prototype for everything

 

The little I know is that sleeper spacing at the end of pannels reduced and I think the end sleepers were 12" and not 10".

 

Still going back to those who wanted decent looking track in 00 but also the thicker sleepers to match Peco points. I think there is about 0.15mm difference with Exactoscale instead of about 0.75mm with C&L.

 

Edit: the C&L track in the photo is some of my old 00 gauge stuff. I have updated the info on sleepers and spacings taken from their latest EM gauge track, as I have no 00 gauge track to compare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...