fiNetrax

[Multiple identity account 2]

Hi,

 

Can someone tell me if they are electrofrog points or inslufrog (spelling wrong?) points?

[66C]

Hi Jeremiah

 

The turnouts have a very finely cast nickel-silver common crossing (frog). You would need to solder wires to each of the rail sections and the casting. The casting would need to be connected through a switch operated in conjunction with the turnout operation - most point motors have auxiliary switches that will do this.

 

There is lots of information and feedback from users on the FiNetrax Forum here:

 

http://finetrax.proboards.com

 

Regards.

[frobisher]

Being hand assembled, they could probably be either depending on the whim of the constructer, but it makes most sense to make them live frog given the amount of dead frog you'd end up with given the cast piece.

 

I'm very, very tempted to try some of these myself but have never actually done anything remotely like it.

[Kris]

As has been said you could build these as insulfrog points but you would be very disappointed with the running that you would achieve. Far better to wire it up properly and it would only take a very small amount of extra effort.  

[Multiple identity account 2]

Ahh well I only look for inslufrog points because electrofrog requires a lot of work. I wouldn't mind trying it but living all the way in India if I botch it up it'll be an expensive affair and I cannot let dad spend too much for small things.

[Robert Shrives]

 

 

 

Jeremiah,

These points are ok to make - have a look at the Ngauge Forum finetrax pages and my album page. If you consider it a plastic kit with brass parts not far off the mark. The jig shown makes blades and the small bit of soldering quite straight forward.  If you do get to make the Indian based layout however I would think you need flatbottom rail so Peco might be the way forward , but when funds permit I recommend making one of these as part of the learning curve !  

robert

[Multiple identity account 2]

Thanks Robert,

It's for a UK based layout. There are no IR models at the moment and I am only at the start of designing a few. IR does use bullhead rail also.

[Robert Shrives]

Hi Jeremiah,

 

Well if you use inslufrog and bobo diesels as a minimum on dc only possible to run a layout built in 2013 as if built in 1983... It will run well with care but that is all. Even a small shed layout or shunting mini in DCC with a minimum of points and peco instructions are clear and simple you should have no problem building a layout but track will always look American - careful ballasting and perhaps stripping sleepers and respacing will help but points will always be a signature point. But your railway and a good place to start so have fun and perhaps in a few years time as skills consolidate and grow then these points will be right for you.  I have on an extension using code 55 electro frog removed much excess peco plastic and they look much better. plain track to match rest so really this historic layout is just that  and will stay for that reason.  Next layouts WILL be fineNtrax .

Robert      

[Douglas G]

One of the issues raised with Peco Code 55 points is the large gap at crossing vees and between the rails and the check rail, which doesn't look right and can lead to wheel dropping at the crossing vee.

 

Is it just my imagination when looking at photos of the Finetrax points, or is the gap as big as in the Peco Code 55 points, and might wheels drop in the gap in the same way?

 

Douglas

[HSB]

This is an optical illusion. The finer code 40 rail tends to make the gap look wider than it actually is.

[Vanders]

Is it just my imagination when looking at photos of the Finetrax points, or is the gap as big as in the Peco Code 55 points, and might wheels drop in the gap in the same way?

fiNetrax uses a 0.8mm flange width (if I remember correctly), which is actually narrower than Peco, and about the smallest you can use with modern RtR rolling stock without having to re-wheel everything.

[Kris]

The gap is larger than that achieved in 2mm, but to my eyes it is not nearly as bad as the peco version. I suspect that much of this is down to the better sleeper spacings and a bit of an optical illusion. 

[Douglas G]

Does anyone know of any completed layouts on the exhibition circuit that use Finetrax track, preferably with the Finetrax points as well as the plain track?

 

I would be very interested to see just how this track looks on a layout at normal viewing distance, especially compared to Peco Code 55 and 2mm finecale track.

 

I have also been wondering, is there actually any wheel drop at the points with Finetrax? The lack of wheel drop due to the narrow flangeways and fine wheel standards is one of the advantages claimed for 2mm FS points over commercial N track.

 

Douglas

Edited January 28, 2014 by Douglas G

[Kris]

Not aware of any at the moment, however I am currently building one. Progress is being held up by the lack of a diamond crossing (promised a long time ago but yet to show up). 

I will have a test later for wheel drop on some 4 wheeled wagons and see what happens.

 

 

Plain track

From normal distances the plain track is indistinguishable from Easitrack, it is however a vast improvement over the Peco offerings. 

 

Point work 

As with the plain track the visual improvement over the Peco offerings is large. The larger flangeways of N gauge means that the 2mm FS point work does still look noticeable better. Were I modelling diesels I would be using 2mm FS.

[ThaneofFife]

Plain track

From normal distances the plain track is indistinguishable from Easitrack, it is however a vast improvement over the Peco offerings. 

 

 

As far as the concrete sleeper offering is concerned I would have to ask if you are looking at the right Easitrac.

The difference of the Easitrac over the Peco offering is staggeringly good.

[-missy-]

Progress is being held up by the lack of a diamond crossing (promised a long time ago but yet to show up). 

 

Hi.

 

I think this is a real big issue with the range, or should that be the lack of range. If you venture outside of the plan track and single point kit it then gets very difficult, TBH much harder than using Easitrack components.

 

Missy.

[Kris]

There are now B6 and B8 points in the range Missy. I do agree however that once you get outside of this range it is easier to use easitrack. 

[Vanders]

I don't know, I had very little problem building my own N gauge pointwork and then using that with fiNetrax. I see no reason why that would be any harder than using Easitrack components for everything instead of building your own when a piece of trackwork isn't available from the existing fiNetrax range.

 

Shame the 1:6 crossing is taking so long though. I believe Wayne said he has had some trouble getting some of the components cast accurately but has been working on it.

[Douglas G]

Judging from the lengths of the B6 and B8 turnouts on the Finetrax website forum, it sounds as if they are almost the same lengths as the Peco Code 55 Medium and Long points.  Can they be seen as more or less equivalent? I do realise that the angles will be different, with Peco designed to give the same turnout angle from different length points.

 

I have decided to give more thought to Finetrax for my Dulverton model. Almost all the points can be done with Peco Medium and Long code 55 turnouts, so I am guessing that the Finetrax B6 and B8 turnouts would substitute. I would also need two very long, high speed turnouts for the passenger loops - if using Peco I was going to fudge by using the Long points and modifying the track layout accordingly, but it would make quite a difference to how it looked.  It would be nice to make, or have made, something to match the originals.

 

Finally I would need an asymmetric 3-way point. The Peco one happens to be an almost exact match for the one at Dulverton, and was the main reason I had decided to use the Peco Code 55 track.  The thought of making something like that myself scares me silly.

 

Douglas

Edited January 29, 2014 by Douglas G

[Joseph_Pestell]

Douglas,

 

Dulverton will look massively better using fiNetrax in place of Peco. But it will be more work and I agree that producing a 3-way point would be a difficult task.

[iamjamie]

I'm not using fiNetrax in it's complete form, but I am using the plastic chairs to build track using real wood sleepers...

 

In terms of the range being limited right now, is there a reason you can't combine some of the easitrac turnout bases with the fiNetrax chairs (the one's without the alignment pegs)? I don't know how different the sleeper size of the two systems are... I suppose depending on the turnout you might not be able to use the cast frog as well, which is one of the attractions of fiNetrax in the first place as that's the most fiddly bit!

[Douglas G]

I'm not using fiNetrax in it's complete form, but I am using the plastic chairs to build track using real wood sleepers...

 

In terms of the range being limited right now, is there a reason you can't combine some of the easitrac turnout bases with the fiNetrax chairs (the one's without the alignment pegs)? I don't know how different the sleeper size of the two systems are... I suppose depending on the turnout you might not be able to use the cast frog as well, which is one of the attractions of fiNetrax in the first place as that's the most fiddly bit!

Unfortunately only one of the Easitrac turnout bases is illustrated in the 2mm Society shop. However, I was wondering if it might actually be possible to drill holes into the sleepers of an Easitrac base and then use the Finetrax chairs with the alignment pegs to produce 9mm gauge points. I was also wondering if the existing Finetrack cast frog could be used for a longer point, although I can see there might be issues with the angle of the frog.

 

Douglas

Edited January 30, 2014 by Douglas G

[Joseph_Pestell]

Douglas,

 

You might like to take a look at some of the stuff available in the US. In particular P87 Store (there is a recent thread on here), despite its name, offers crossings and other components for N.

[Douglas G]

Hi Joseph,

 

Thanks very much for that information.

 

This is the link:

 

http://www.proto87.com/n-scale-track.html

 

Those ready made crossings/frogs look very good and I see they include a very shallow angle one suitable for a high speed point. The rail itself in the crossing doesn't look too different in appearance (at least from above) from the bullhead of Finetrax.

 

Interestingly these US components are described as precision milled, while I think I read somewhere that the Finetrax ones are cast.

 

It does look like the components do exist to make a range of finescale N points without having to resort to soldering rail to the sleepers.

 

Looking at the design of the Finetrax turnouts I wonder if it could be recreated for a bespoke turnout by a solid piece of plastic card cut to the point outline for the base and half thickness plastic sleepers stuck on top with solvent, to create something similar to the Finetrax and Easitrac point bases. The Finetrax chairs could then be glued on or inserted into holes drilled in the correct positions.

 

Lots of food for thought...

 

Douglas

Edited January 30, 2014 by Douglas G

[Kris]

Unfortunately only one of the Easitrac turnout bases is illustrated in the 2mm Society shop. However, I was wondering if it might actually be possible to drill holes into the sleepers of an Easitrac base and then use the Finetrax chairs with the alignment pegs to produce 9mm gauge points. I was also wondering if the existing Finetrack cast frog could be used for a longer point, although I can see there might be issues with the angle of the frog.

 

Douglas

 

I see no reason why that would not be possible, but if you are doing this then why not just use the non peg chairs and glue them on?

 

Currently if you want to create a diamond using this method you are going to be hammered on the purchase of the chairs. You would need 20 sprues of them at £2.50 each. Most of these chairs would be wasted but you need the flange way parts. 

 

If you are a member of the 2mm soc and wanted to create a diamond with narrower flange ways you could use the easiTrack chairs. You still need the same number of sprues but they are old £2 per sprue.

 

edit - prices given are not correct - seems I missed the fact that the prices are for 12 sprues not one. Don't know whether I just didn't seem the info or it didn't load but when I checked back there does seem to be more info on the pages than when I looked previously. Thanks to 2mm Andy for bringing this up.  

Edited January 31, 2014 by Kris