Is trackwork the poor relation of the hobby ?

[Clive Mortimore]

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?

 

Hi Coach

 

You are right to point this out and they are good products. C&L also do 00 track and for those who feel they cannot make their own point work they do the components which takes out quite a bit of teh hard work. But wouldn't it be nice if someone was to make point work that has timber spacing that matches British practice with the reliability of Peco streamlined points. Who better than Peco could do this?

 

Clive

[Clive Mortimore]

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?

 

 

Best, Pete.

 

 

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.

 

Hi Pete and Martin

 

Martin's comment on how H0 track looks with 4mm stock on it really shows up when looking side on. I spent some time tonight viewing Paul Bartlett's wagon photos and decided to count the number of sleepers between the wheels of a 10 foot wheelbase van, 4 sleepers on all the photos where the van was on plain track. I placed a Bachman van on some streamline and there were 6 sleepers between the wheels, it did not look at all right. I then placed the same van on some SMP track, and there were 4 sleepers putting it all in proportion.

[Clive Mortimore]

Peco are the last company to think about making OO track..... they make a perfectly good HO track system already....Cutting ones nose off to spite ya face springs to mind...

 

Hi Mickey

 

If you go back to post 199 you will see that I mention that Peco have changed their most common point , the medium radius at least 6 times to meet modellers needs.

 

Edit So why be defeatist, why not ask Peco for some British looking 00 track and points. It might be worth pushing our luck and ask for some code 83 flatbottom concrete sleeper track and matching wood timbered points, the most common combination of mainline track for the past 40 to 50 years.

[Clive Mortimore]

Peco altered their HO track to suit the US market.....its not and never will be aimed at the UK...

 

It does the job and is very good, but its not 4mm track.....

 

Hi Mickey

 

I was not talking about their "new" code 83 track for the US market, that is different to their "traditional" track. When I first brought a medium radius point it was code 100 insulfrog with very wide check and wing rails. Electrofrog points were available but to a 14 year old these were scary things. The ectrofrog was Peco's first change to their sucessful range. Today, 41 years later I cannot buy that point, I can get a code 100 point with narrower check rails and wing rails, the changes to this finer point came about because modellers wanted better looking wheels on their stock and for these to run on Peco points they needed to change their H0 track. Modellers wanted to use their H0 and 00 loco chassis for 7mm scale narrow guage model railways, they were cutting away every other sleeper to get the narrow guage effect, Peco saw a market and made a new base for their point the 0/16.5 one. Some modellers said that their code 100 track was too high and wouldn't it be nice if their was a finer scale track, Peco introduced code 75 track, with point work. Recently to meet the want of those who wished for concrete bearers not wooden timbers under their points they introduced thier concrete base. I think this does show that Peco are willing to change, not always very fast but they have in the past.

 

What hasn't changed is the ease of laying the track and reliability of the point work. To have these combined with British 00 track would be wonderful.

 

"One day we might get a British diesel loco that picks up on all wheels, has drive on all wheels, has working lights, a rotating fan and sound like diesel when moving." was a cry in the past so lets make threads like this a thing of the past.

[hayfield]

We were better off for choice in the 60/s and 70's for turnouts, Foromway and GEM produced ready to plonk track in 4mm scale. I have a GEM turnout still, but its achililes heel was that the common crossing was a soft metal casting.

 

Certainly the GEM turnout looked much beter than a Peco turnout when put side to side, having the correct sized and spaced sleepers for 4mm scale, as did their own flexitrack.

 

I can see why so many modellers want to stay with 00 gauge rather than EM or P4, what makes me smile is when they make or buy highly detailed locos and coaches (and complain when its missing the odd rivet), but they are quite happy to plonk it on H0 track.

[trisonic]

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.

 

Martin,

I guess the point is that if one compromises on gauge that one must compromise on sleeper size. Eastwood Town looks good, of course!

Trust the British (and I'm British) to have compromises on all three major scales for the RTR market.

At least the US only compromise on one 2-rail (forgetting the truly awful Lionel bilge, what was Neil Young thinking...) 1/48 O Gauge and then the gauge is too wide at 5 scale feet - it does look slightly better than being under-gauge but it's still wrong.

 

Btw most US "O gauge" automobiles are at 1/43 - trying finding them at 1/48 - it's madness, I tell you.

 

In the meantime thank God for HO at 1/87. Now if I could only persuade someone to make rail at Code 70 US style flatbottom, correct rail head width, in drawn steel (I hate N/S).

 

In good spirits, Pete.

[Ramblin Rich]

Peco seem to be able to make several versions of track at various gauges, including 2 versions of narrow gauge track at 009. The narrow gauge market must be smaller than 00 to start with, yet they tooled a different sleeper base to produce a "mainline" version as well as the original "crazy track" version - so spread this small market even more between 2 ranges. My question then is - why shouldn't they be able to make 2 versions of standard gauge track at 16.5 with different sleeper spacings?

Incidentally, having just looked at the Peco website, the banner ad at the top is for the code 75 steel sleeper streamline - which is marked as H0

Perhaps a poll or petition would be able to 'gauge' (sorry) the the likely demand?

[trisonic]

Well, Peco make even more mistakes with their points/turnouts (no Martin I'm deliberately going to mix terminology up because they deserve it).

Every single Peco point is loose-heeled - how many loose heeled points can you find on the prototype in the UK? Not freaking many!

 

The US, on the other hand is almost exclusively loose-heeled on the prototype - so what market is Peco aiming at?

 

Their "point blades" are aptly named because if you took them off you could actually stab someone with them (until they bent, of course) - which leads us on to the amount of metal they remove from both the running rail and the blades - I just cannot imagine why that is necessary....it does look dire, I'm afraid.

 

Never mind there are plenty of alternatives available that both perform better and look better but we Brits vote with our feet and Peco are still around (I call that "irony" - it doesn't often work well on the internet).

 

That's enough

 

Best, Pete.

 

PS The above post was in response to Ramblin Rich's post number 225. I agree with Mickey's post above!

[Ramblin Rich]

Agree with you re the point blades too, Pete - the Peco point/turnout/S&C range (that should satisfy the pedants! ) needs even more work than the plain track. I suppose the debate is - can Peco produce a "better looking" RTR range or does everyone have to make their own S&C and thread their own C&L / Exactoscale plain track - which won't be as easy or durable?

[trisonic]

Rich, when I said I was responding to your post I did not mean it was contentious - it was an addendum if anything. I don't wish to get into anyone's bad books!

 

As to who has made good RTR OO pointwork/track (I assume that you're not including the smaller guys in this)? Well, I remember Formoway and that had issues, certainly but was very good for it's time, I suppose. Wasn't that part of the original Farish "empire"?

I'd like to see Shinohara take a stab at the British 4mm market! I've got an HO Number 8 point in Code 70 here and it is almost a work of art at over 14 inches long...it needs work to bring it up to DCC though.

I'm certain Peco could do it if they had the confidence to so do. Whether they would make a healthy profit from it is something I cannot say, I would say it bears serious investigation from them. How much it would increase their already large market share is probably the moot point (sic).

 

Best, Pete.

[Pacific231G]

Agree with you re the point blades too, Pete - the Peco point/turnout/S&C range (that should satisfy the pedants! )

 

No need. You can be as pedantic as you like and in British English at least still use points or turnout as synonyms.

 

For example "Points failure- A fault within a set of points (switches and crossings)" (ORR glossary) or "The formal inquiry panel found the that the left leading wheel of the leading bogie of coach D struck a piece of broken fishplate that had lodged in the flangeway of the cast common crossing of points numbers 8175A." (official report on the Southall East Junction derailment) Curiously the ORR glossary doesn't include the word turnout at all and the more comprehensive Railway Safety and Standards Board glossary defines it as "A point end (excluding switch diamonds)" so not including the crossing though PW engineers and suppliers clearly do normally use turnout to mean the whole unit including the crossing.

 

The term I really dislike is "turnout control" or "turnout motor" which some manufacturers including Peco have started using. I've never seen it used prototypically where point machine (switch machine in N America) seems to be the normal term even when it's driving moveable crossings (frogs)or switch diamonds. I'm not sure how even "point motor" came into model railway usage.

[coachmann]

Martin's comment on how H0 track looks with 4mm stock on it really shows up when looking side on. I spent some time tonight viewing Paul Bartlett's wagon photos and decided to count the number of sleepers between the wheels of a 10 foot wheelbase van, 4 sleepers on all the photos where the van was on plain track. I placed a Bachman van on some streamline and there were 6 sleepers between the wheels, it did not look at all right. I then placed the same van on some SMP track, and there were 4 sleepers putting it all in proportion.

 

I can see why so many modellers want to stay with 00 gauge rather than EM or P4, what makes me smile is when they make or buy highly detailed locos and coaches (and complain when its missing the odd rivet), but they are quite happy to plonk it on H0 track

 

I'm not being funny but, after counting sleepers below wagons, what happens when model curves fall well below the radius of curves generally found on real British mainlines. We turn a blind eye that's what. So while I stand shoulder to shoulder with those calling for the convenience of a Peco British OO trackwork system, I also know that if such a system were introduced, it would not make people look seriously at their sharp curves. Afterall, P4 didnt!

[kevinlms]

 

 

Whatever happened to the British Ho society? I seem to remember they planned an HO class 37 some years ago

 

They asked Heljan to make a Class 37 (chosen because it was/is the most widespread British diesel class), but there was a minimum quantity to make it worthwhile. The fact that they couldn't achieve that number says a lot.

Someone realised that Heljan had done a fair amount of work, so they asked if it would be viable in 4mm scale. The rest is history.

[hayfield]

I suppose the debate is - can Peco produce a "better looking" RTR range or does everyone have to make their own S&C and thread their own C&L / Exactoscale plain track - which won't be as easy or durable?

 

Other than the C&L and SMP sleepers are thinner than Peco's, are they less durable?, certanly as easy. As for Exactoscale track which has sleepers the same thickness as Peco's, can't see a durability problem there. OK with Exactoscale you have to thread the rail on to track bases and cut the webbing for curved track, but straight track is a doddle.

 

As for hand made turnouts using the above named companies. Certainly not as easy, possabily more durable, much easier to repair though.

[trisonic]

I've never found Peco particularly durable - only the Code 100 (or Code 80 for N) we don't need them to be built like Brick Outhouses if that is going to be the result.......I built an American layout in N in about 1970. The Rivarossi Locos (I think Concor was starting to release stuff too) on the then one and only Peco Code 80 looked they were running on construction girders - I basically gave up because it looked so bad.

 

Peco can do better if their will is there.

 

Best, Pete.

[Pacific231G]

I'm not being funny but, after counting sleepers below wagons, what happens when model curves fall well below the radius of curves generally found on real British mainlines. We turn a blind eye that's what. So while I stand shoulder to shoulder with those calling for the convenience of a Peco British OO trackwork system, I also know that if such a system were introduced, it would not make people look seriously at their sharp curves. Afterall, P4 didnt!

Cyril Freezer once commented that, for the trackwork in most 00 model railway the gauge was the least compromised dimension. He sort of had a point in that for 4mm/ft scale the gauge of 16.5mm is about 87% of prototype whereas point radii are probably less than half of that in reality as are platform and siding lengths. I still think it gives a very false impression of what a loco or carriage looks like in end view but then I suppose we don't see end views that much.

 

Curiously, though Peco seems far and away the most popular track used by modellers in France, SMP track with sleepers spaced for British 00 has been used by a number of modellers there especially for track with bullhead rail and for secondary railways or earlier epochs where sleeper spacing was greater than on more modern main lines. The sleepers themselves though exactly to scale length for H0 are a bit wide for that scale but it's obviously easier to narrow a sleeper than to broaden it.

[Ramblin Rich]

I suppose the ideal would be an intermediate quality 00 system, which is visibly more British looking than Streamline, but still featuring ready made pointwork and ready to lay track. I've used SMP flexitrack and it does look good, except the sleepers are very shallow - I never got round to ballasting, but I think it would be difficult to hide the webbing with the ballast.

Tillig is kind of in the frame, but still has 'continental' features....

[t-b-g]

I know I will get shot down by the "I don't have the time/inclination/skill/can't be bothered" brigade but to my way of thinking, if anybody cares enough to worry that their trackwork doesn't look as good as it might, why don't they have a go at building their own. Many modellers have done so over the years and building a simple soldered point in copperclad is really not very difficult or time consuming. All you need are a few basic tools, a couple of gauges, sleeper strip, rail and a plan.

 

You have the added benefit that you are not limited to whatever formations the manufacturers offer and that pointwork made is much cheaper than pointwork bought. I can now build a copperclad point in around three hours, including filing the blades and crossing nose. My first one wasn't brilliant but my second one was certainly adequate fpr use. I was about 11 years old at the time and if I could do it then, with the skills and experience I had (none!!) I am sure that anybody could have a decent try. The first few were built by gluing Peco Code 100 flat bottom rail to balsawood sleepers with Bostick. I wanted a larger radius point than Peco did at the time, so instead of moaning about it, I got off my backside and made one. It believe it is called modelling!

 

Failing that, have a look at the thread on the layout based on Grantham. That uses Peco track, which has been modified to correct the spacing between parallel tracks. Or Widnes Vine Yard. Peco track, laid, painted and ballasted correctly can look decidedly better than dreadful.

 

If a few more people had a go at such things, perhaps trackwork would cease to be the poor relation that some folk say that it is.

[gordon s]

I suppose the ideal would be an intermediate quality 00 system, which is visibly more British looking than Streamline, but still featuring ready made pointwork and ready to lay track. I've used SMP flexitrack and it does look good, except the sleepers are very shallow - I never got round to ballasting, but I think it would be difficult to hide the webbing with the ballast.

Tillig is kind of in the frame, but still has 'continental' features....

 

No problem ballasting SMP at all Rich. There's loads of pics of ballasted SMP in my ET thread. Earlier versions used Woodland Scenics Medium Grey Blend Ballast, but I've now moved onto the finer variant. Either way, no problem losing the web.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Cyril Freezer once commented that, for the trackwork in most 00 model railway the gauge was the least compromised dimension. He sort of had a point in that for 4mm/ft scale the gauge of 16.5mm is about 87% of prototype whereas point radii are probably less than half of that in reality as are platform and siding lengths. I still think it gives a very false impression of what a loco or carriage looks like in end view but then I suppose we don't see end views that much.

 

Bearing in mind that CF was the edtor of RM for a while, published by PECO, I think that this may have been a bit of a smokescreen. "Why worry about that inaccuracy when the rest is even more obviously wrong?"

 

Having built P4 track, the most obvious thing I notice about Peco plain track is the sleeper size/spacing. With points/turnouts it's the check rail and switch/stockrail gaps which are the most noticeably wrong.

[Ramblin Rich]

Gordon - I hadn't realised you used SMP (I'm afraid I haven't digested the whole of ET thread...)! You certainly made it look very good.

I've been looking at your posts re: 00-SF points & beginning to think that may be a way forward in terms of improving the look of 00 - especially the flangeways. I found your videos of various locos showing how well it seems to work with different makers' wheels. Whether a manufacturer would even make an RTR product is another thing...!

[autocoach]

Just a thought but with rapid prototyping using CAD from Templot and 3d printing would someone be able to produce 4mm adjusted scale 16.5 mm gauge ready for rail tie strip? Maybe the chairs would have to be a separate printing. Possibly even turnout ties that could satisfy the multitude of different track patterns and bolt patterns of at least the 1923-48 period. Is the CAD from Templot able to be translated to 3d CAD and tweaked for 3d printing.

 

Would the 3d printed product be able to stand up to being used as track? I am suggesting that then the track builder would separately have to source the bullhead rail of choice.

 

Here's an opportunity to explore. We could satisfy disparate interests without relying on Peco or another track manufacturer. If C&L or SMP were to do this it would be fine and bring their methodology into the 21st century. Exactoscale (now C&L..see product news) could expand and satisfy the much larger 16.5 mm gauge market (if they were so inclined.)

 

This could go beyond mail order distribution into more advanced model railway shops so potential consumers could get look, touch and feel. Otherwise it would remain an internet business with distribution by post.

[OFFTHE RAILS]

In answer to the original post – YES – trackwork is the poor relation of the hobby – in 00 at least.

Can anyone let me know the history of SMP plastic based code 75 bullhead trackwork which has has been available for at least 35 years?

 

Back in the early 80s I built a successful small end to end railway using SMP track and the 36” radius plastic based point kits and after an interval of over 25 years before returning to the hobby I’ve found that the (excellent) SMP plastic based track range has not changed ! Why wasn’t the range extended over the years?

 

Also I’ve noted references to “SMP Mk1” and SMP Mk2” – what are the differences?

 

Ian

[gordon s]

I haven't seen that reference, but I do have two types of SMP track here where the sleepers are different. I can some pics if needed, but the later design sleeper is thinner and narrower.

[gordon s]

Found a couple of samples. The sleepers on the earlier design are black in colour and wider in section. The later design uses a brown sleeper material and it is thinner in section and slightly narrower. The pitch appears similar and the rail section appears the same.