Is trackwork the poor relation of the hobby ?

[LNERGE]

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 5.25mm 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.

 

My British Railways pamphlet ''CODES OF PRACTICE FOR GANGERS, SUB-GANGERS AND LENGTHMEN'' 1952 has this regarding sleeper spacing..

 

Edit to add... If the spacings for curves of less than 40 chains are of interest i'll post them or the whole pamphlet as required.

 

[hayfield]

No doubt Martin will explain Templots spacings, but as only 0.2mm out good enough for me. And as Peco have a 3.9mm gap there is quite a lot of difference. As I said no excuse for wrong sleeper spacings, just need a set of decent turnouts!!

[martin_wynne]

No doubt Martin will explain Templots spacings, but as only 0.2mm out good enough for me.

 

Hi John,

 

0.2mm could be your printer. Is it a laser printer? Have you done a Templot printer calibration?

 

There are 5 standard settings in Templot for sleeper spacings, at real > plain track options > rail lengths and sleeper spacings... menu item:

 

 

 

Or you can create a custom setting to suit any prototype. Stuart Hince wrote a detailed guide to setting up custom plain track sleeper spacings at:

 

http://www.templot.c...rack_panels.pdf

 

The numbers given are actually for the GWR, but the method is applicable for all companies.

 

There is additional information by following the help notes in the program, also some notes on CWR (long-welded rail) and USA-style staggered rail joints.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

Martin

 

Thanks for giving an answer, both C&L and Exactoscale are spot on. May be my printer or digital calaper.

 

Still it was info just to explain that those who do not like Peco sleeper spacing and want thicker track bases are catered for and Exactoscale do both wooden bullhead and concrete sleepers with code 82 flatbottom

[autocoach]

An argument could be made for 240 mm (9.45 inch) sections of snap track with correctly molded sleepers and short spacing at each end.

[StuartM]

I might must be a bit 'odd', as my favourite part of modelling railways is actually, trackwork.....I`m not that enthusiastic about running trains for hours on end, but love the design and building of the layout, especially in precise scale detail, the "more real" the P.W and S&T can look, the better.

 

I too was surprised upon returning to the hobby (after a couple of decades break), at how much technology had been brought-in; what with sound and DCC etc., but how little changed was the availability of R.T.R, detailed/scale permanent-way components....although the (now) widespread availability of P4/S4 and F7/S7 finescale P.W components, do have much to offer for 'trackies' like me!

 

......so, here`s a big thumbs-up for all you 'trackies' out there.

 

I agree, for me the design and building of track work "IS" the enjoyable part of the hobby.

One of the joys of building your own track is that you can create track layouts that are just impossible with the standard ots products that Peco & co produce.

[autocoach]

Any new news or good rumors on better scale 00 RTR point solutions? Did I miss a new topic somewhere?

[hayfield]

At last I have reached a decision. Levelling and matching SMP bullhead track with Peco points as I did in 2009 will not happen. Trains gliding over perfectly level track will once again take precedent over looks and so I am adopting Peco Code 75 throughout indoors and Code 100 outside.

 

Use Exactoscale track bases, the sleepers are 1.6mm thick so should be the same height as Peco turnouts, Delivery seems to be back to normal now

 

Any new news or good rumors on better scale 00 RTR point solutions? Did I miss a new topic somewhere?

 

Not heard anything yet, but hand made track is not that hard to build. Start off building single turnouts for an introduction not double slips as one's first build

[Clive Mortimore]

We can keep going round and round with this topic. There are some quite simple things that we all seem to understand.

 

00 gauge is not to any scale but we keep modelling in it.

 

To improve the look of the track we can build it ourselves, or buy Marcway track or change gauge.

 

Peco track works, open the box, throw on baseboard, hammer in a couple of nails, add wires between rails and controller and it is up and running.

 

Many of us would be happy with pointwork that appears to have 4mm spacing of its sleepers but to save re-gauging our stock for it to be 00. What we want is something as reliable as Peco which looks British 4mm not rest of the world 3.5mm in 16.5 mm gauge.

 

There have been quite a few people saying it would be too expensive to make a new point timber base moulding for Peco track. Let us look at their most common point, the medium radius. They do this point in code 100 insulfrog, code 100 electrofrog, code 100 0/16.5mm narrow gauge, code 75 wood timbers and code 75 concrete bearers. That is 5 different base mouldings and two rail profiles. In the past Peco done the code 100 track in in two standards, the coarser one has been out of production for some time. As you can see Peco have changed things in the past to meet modeller’s request. Without changing any thing but the base moulding it would not be hard to produce British 00 point work. Surely one thing that should come out of this thread is a campaign to convince Peco to make another series of base mouldings.

 

Should we be lucky to persuade Peco to make a new base moulding then those who are happy with existing products can carry on using them and those who enjoy building track can do so. Having an improved appearance but "wrong" point work should not stop people building their own.

 

I am sure our N gauge modelling mates would like a similar product for them as well.

 

Yours

 

Clive

[martin_wynne]

Without changing any thing but the base moulding it would not be hard to produce British 00 point work. Surely one thing that should come out of this thread is a campaign to convince Peco to make another series of base mouldings.

 

I'm convinced the difficulty is in the marketing. How would you tell everyone that the new pointwork is correct to British practice, without admitting that the stuff you have been selling them for 40 years and is installed on many thousands of layouts is in fact, er..., wrong? That may be common knowledge on forums such as RMweb, but when was it ever mentioned in the Railway Modeller? A great many 00 modellers have spent years happily building layouts with Peco products and would feel terribly let down. Such a new range of pointwork could do the Peco brand image more harm than good.

 

The answer is surely to get on and build your own track. You could have an entire layout built and finished while waiting for this argument to go round and round and round again.

 

Martin.

[Clive Mortimore]

I'm convinced the difficulty is in the marketing. How would you tell everyone that the new pointwork is correct to British practice, without admitting that the stuff you have been selling them for 40 years and is installed on many thousands of layouts is in fact, er..., wrong? That may be common knowledge on forums such as RMweb, but when was it ever mentioned in the Railway Modeller? A great many 00 modellers have spent years happily building layouts with Peco products and would feel terribly let down. Such a new range of pointwork could do the Peco brand image more harm than good.

 

The answer is surely to get on and build your own track. You could have an entire layout built and finished while waiting for this argument to go round and round and round again.

 

Martin.

 

Good point Martin. Peco saying they are wrong.

 

But come on how many modellers have only ever purchased the Railway Modeller, and never discussed Peco track with another modeller. The Model Railway News in the 1950s was saying 00 and Peco, Farish etc. were wrong, and we should all be modelling EM, and Model Railway Constructor in the 60s had early P4 articles showing us what was wrong with 00 and Peco. I don't think out there in model railway land there is modeller who thinks that Peco track is right. What they (and me) know is that it works and makes one aspect of modelling easier. Not everyone has the skills, time, patience etc. to build their own track. I do agree with you that should you want something that at the moment is not available then make it yourself, I have be doing this for years with locos, coaches, DMUs, wagons, buildings, figures but not track until recently http://www.rmweb.co....150#entry770543

 

For those who cannot, or will not build they own trackwork then there is no harm is asking Peco to have a go at producing something that looks more British even if they have to say they might not have been 100% right in the past. For us Peco users the ease of use of the product remains the main selling point.

 

Yours

 

Clive

[Jol Wilkinson]

Good point Martin. Peco saying they are wrong.

 

But come on how many modellers have only ever purchased the Railway Modeller, and never discussed Peco track with another modeller. The Model Railway News in the 1950s was saying 00 and Peco, Farish etc. were wrong, and we should all be modelling EM, and Model Railway Constructor in the 60s had early P4 articles showing us what was wrong with 00 and Peco. I don't think out there in model railway land there is modeller who thinks that Peco track is right. What they (and me) know is that it works and makes one aspect of modelling easier. Not everyone has the skills, time, patience etc. to build their own track. I do agree with you that should you want something that at the moment is not available then make it yourself, I have be doing this for years with locos, coaches, DMUs, wagons, buildings, figures but not track until recently http://www.rmweb.co....150#entry770543

 

For those who cannot, or will not build they own trackwork then there is no harm is asking Peco to have a go at producing something that looks more British even if they have to say they might not have been 100% right in the past. For us Peco users the ease of use of the product remains the main selling point.

 

Yours

 

Clive

 

Clive,

 

I agree with what you say, except that you may well not be right about all modellers thinking that Peco track is inaccurate. Many modellers vision is driven by what appears in the magazines and catalogues. If all you ever see is Peco and you don't make the effort to compare it with photos of the real thing, then you will assume it must look right.

 

Add to that Peco's ready availability and the apparently commonly held belief that building realistic looking 00 trackwork (if that isn't an oxymoron) is too much like hard work, then pressing Peco to produce something more realistic is the only way forward. Given that they haven't had do do so thus far, makes me think it's unlikely that they'll do it now.

 

Jol

[JohnR]

How have Peco marketed their other improved ranges, eg the Code 83 stuff for the US market? I mean did they tell their customers that the stuff they had been selling them up until now was rubbish?

[Guest jim s-w]

I agree with Jol

 

Having exhibited EM and P4 layouts for years theres a large proportion of modellers out there without the slightest clue that Peco (or 00 standards even) have anything wrong with them.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Guest dilbert]

there's a large proportion of modellers out there without the slightest clue that Peco (or 00 standards even) have anything wrong with them.

 

Indeed Jim, there's the WNHISG brigade who are happy to extol the improvements in 4mm RTR loco, coaching and freight stock over the last fifteen years or so and basically don't care about trackwork fidelity so long 'as it works OK', and, at a reasonable price. Those that think it is wrong will do something about it

 

How have Peco marketed their other improved ranges, eg the Code 83 stuff for the US market? I mean did they tell their customers that the stuff they had been selling them up until now was rubbish?

 

Why is the HO/OO stuff rubbish ? It is marketed as being compatible for HO/OO gauges (which are the same, thought the represented scales are different)! I think that Peco would have a serious issue in tooling up for correct sleeper spacing in OO gauge. It would probably be quite expensive and lead to being a failure - a great %age of Peco is used on HO layouts - if there was a market for more correct track sleepering by a major manufacturer this would have happened by now - that fact that it hasn't occured to date is testimony to an economic flop... dilbert

[autocoach]

Peco code 75 would be best upgraded to resemble UK prototype. It is unknown and generally not available in the US. I do not think it was ever marketed in the US. I don't know about Canada.

 

HO/00 Streamline, HO Code 83 and On30 lines are doing fairly well according to my local hobby shop in spite of costing more than US made Micro Engineering brand of finescale trackage and Atlas code 83 made in China. Here the HO/00 Streamline looks nothing like US track. But then neither did the Atlas code 100 track made for the 50 past years.

 

And now Peco is introducing a line HOn3 track as well.

 

It would be nice if they would pay a little attention to the UK market other than in O scale/gauge.

[Pacific231G]

I'm convinced the difficulty is in the marketing. How would you tell everyone that the new pointwork is correct to British practice, without admitting that the stuff you have been selling them for 40 years and is installed on many thousands of layouts is in fact, er..., wrong? That may be common knowledge on forums such as RMweb, but when was it ever mentioned in the Railway Modeller? A great many 00 modellers have spent years happily building layouts with Peco products and would feel terribly let down. Such a new range of pointwork could do the Peco brand image more harm than good.

 

 

It should also be common knowledge for any user of Peco products who has bothered to read what the company says about its own products. Their FAQs are very honest "Trackwork as manufactured and packaged by PECO is classified as being suitable for both HO and OO but strictly speaking is designed and made to HO standards" and "It (code 75) should not be classified as fine scale, although it would be true to say it is finer looking."

 

Introducing a new range doesn't seem to have been a problem in the N. American market when they introduced the code 83 line having sold plenty of track there before. if the UK market for "ready to use out of the box" finescale track to British dimensions (if you can have such a thing as finescale in 00) is big enough- then I'd guess they could introduce it as a higher priced "premium" range. "Peco Premier" or something. But if people who want finescale are handlaying their track then the market is more for components.

 

Peco Code 75 may not have been much used in the US but it used by a lot of European modellers and clubs and my impression there is that modellers who are into really accurate fine scale track tend to go the whole way and adopt P87 standards.

The truth is that Peco produces H0 scale track and for that their sleeper dimensions and spacing are surprisingly (at least it surprised me when I measured them) accurate for main line track with a sleeper spacing of 60cm and in our de-industrialised economy a British manufacturer that's exporting successfully surely isn't to be sniffed at.

[trisonic]

I don't know whether anyone else has said this but if Peco produced a "finer" OO trackwork system with correct sleeper size and spacing would not it look even weirder, because the gauge would be even more noticeably underscale?

I remember when the manufacturers announced that British N "scale" would henceforth be standardized on 1:148 (instead of 1:160) that there was a collective groan of "they've done it again".

 

Best, Pete.

[coachmann]

With SMP and Marcway already producing ready-to-plonk 'OO' gauge track with bullhead rail and British sleepering, why are folk complaining there is no British track?

[Bernard Lamb]

I don't know whether anyone else has said this but if Peco produced a "finer" OO trackwork system with correct sleeper size and spacing would not it look even weirder, because the gauge would be even more noticeably underscale?

 

I have come across that logic in the past.

I have even heard the argument that closer sleeper spacing actually appears better as most modellers shorten the true scale length of a station.

I think we come back to the old point made by Cyril Freeer when asked about RTP finer track "They don't know what they want".

If you are not satisfied with Peco then the only logical step to me is to build track suitable for the period and company modelled. No RTP scale track is going to be a good enough compromise to cover any sort of range given the coutless variations possible.

Currently laying sleepers that measure a scale 20' x 12" x 6". Cannot see much of a market for that.

Bernard

Bernard

[t-b-g]

I don't know whether anyone else has said this but if Peco produced a "finer" OO trackwork system with correct sleeper size and spacing would not it look even weirder, because the gauge would be even more noticeably underscale?

I remember when the manufacturers announced that British N "scale" would henceforth be standardized on 1:148 (instead of 1:160) that there was a collective groan of "they've done it again".

 

Best, Pete.

 

100% with you there Pete. Producing a correct scale set of sleepering and then putting rails, which are too close together in proportion to the sleepers will probably produce a track with a distinct "narrow gauge" look to it.

 

That is why I experimented with the point I posted photos of earlier. It is to an intermediate scale and is neither HO or OO but incorporates elements of both. The sleeper width, rail and chairs are all to 4mm scale but the sleeper length is shortened and the spacing is slightly closer, as it was built on EM templates scanned and reduced to give a 16.5mm gauge. One or two people have seen them in the flesh and have had to check to see if they are OO or EM.

 

So perhaps there is a compromise scale/gauge combination that can do away with the HO look, whilst retaining 16.5mm gauge.

[hayfield]

100% with you there Pete. Producing a correct scale set of sleepering and then putting rails, which are too close together in proportion to the sleepers will probably produce a track with a distinct "narrow gauge" look to it.

 

That is why I experimented with the point I posted photos of earlier. It is to an intermediate scale and is neither HO or OO but incorporates elements of both. The sleeper width, rail and chairs are all to 4mm scale but the sleeper length is shortened and the spacing is slightly closer, as it was built on EM templates scanned and reduced to give a 16.5mm gauge. One or two people have seen them in the flesh and have had to check to see if they are OO or EM.

 

So perhaps there is a compromise scale/gauge combination that can do away with the HO look, whilst retaining 16.5mm gauge.

 

Now anyone can use Templot as its free software, so no need to have an intermediate plan, just print odd an 00 gauge plan, or buy a C&L or Exactoscale plan.

 

Having said that the reason those in the Know had to look twice to see what gauge you had built to is that the EM gauge plans look like real turnouts !! and if you put your turnout against the RTR offerings it would look even better

[Poggy1165]

I wonder what percentage of 4mm scale modellers are bothered by the current appearance of RTR track? I suspect that most of those who are divide into Finescale 00, EM and P4 camps, but that the total of those three subsets is a relatively small proportion of the whole.

 

Discussions like this make me glad I work in 7mm, where the situation, though imperfect, is somewhat more straightforward.

[Pacific231G]

I don't know whether anyone else has said this but if Peco produced a "finer" OO trackwork system with correct sleeper size and spacing would not it look even weirder, because the gauge would be even more noticeably underscale?

 

I thought the idea that the BMRSB came up with the 1940s was that you effectively use 1:76 scale longitudinally and vertically so sleeper spacing, width of sleepers, length of check rails buffer beam and platform height is to that scale and then 1:87th scale for the width of the track so the lengths of sleepers etc. would be in proportion to the gauge. It would look wrong from directly above but maybe not from a typical viewing angle and platform clearances have to be over wide and the six foot way more than six foot but that varies anyway.

 

I remember when the manufacturers announced that British N "scale" would henceforth be standardized on 1:148 (instead of 1:160) that there was a collective groan of "they've done it again".

 

 

And that was the third time they'd done it. In the March 1957 Railway Modeller- the month before Minories- there's an article about the new Triang TT-3 range following a long detailed article by Sydney Pritchard explaining and trying to justify the logic behind an even worse scale to gauge compromise than Greenly's 00 with track scaled at 4 foot gauge. I think the reality was that it was mainly about manufacturers wanting to offer trainsets with very tight curves that really would fit on a tabletop and so needing very wide tyres like rollers. With 00 I think Greenly was assuming a minimum curve of 12 inches.

 

Now if only everyone had listened to A.R. Walkley instead none of this might have happened and there were plenty of 00 gauge layouts using the correct 3.5mm/ft scale in MRN in the 1930s.

[martin_wynne]

I don't know whether anyone else has said this but if Peco produced a "finer" OO trackwork system with correct sleeper size and spacing would not it look even weirder, because the gauge would be even more noticeably underscale?

 

Hi Pete,

 

The BRMSB standard for 00 gauge is to use 8ft sleepers (32mm) instead of 8ft-6in, to avoid that effect. Everyone tends to forget that there has been a perfectly good standard for 00 track in existence for 60 years, and until Peco chose to completely ignore it most model track did comply with it.

 

H0 track looks fine by itself until you put 4mm scale rolling-stock on it, which then looks ridiculous. The trains appear to be running on matchsticks.

 

Properly modelled 4ft-1.1/2in gauge track using 4mm scale rail, 4mm scale 8ft sleepers, 4mm scale chairs and fixings, can look really good. See Gordon's Eastwood Town tracks for example.

 

Since everyone accepts 4ft-1.1/2in gauge for their 00 gauge rolling-stock, it's a bit illogical to object to it for the track.

 

regards,

 

Martin.