Ready-to-lay OO Track and Pointwork - moving towards production

[Grovenor]

The Peco geometry is spoiled (imho) by there insistence on using the same 12 degree divergence angle for everything which might give a lot of compatibility but it also reduces the benefit from the longer points, a more realistic range would be to have divergence angles matching the crossing angles and hence improving the reverse curve effect when creating a common crossover, for diamonds I would suggest a curved diamond designed to make a typical British double junction when used with the medium point, it would mean having both left and right hand diamonds but that has been done before I think. And a proper double junction is the main item missing from current rtp ranges.

Keith

[t-b-g]

I agree with you about Ls and how Peter Denny made very good use of them. Leighton Buzzard (Linslade) was, according to an RM article by him about it, based on four foot curves but with three feet in a few places. I was though thinking more of an angled approach perhaps for a portable layout.

 

You don't actually need different radii for crossovers in a curved approach- the Chemin de Fer de l'Est certainly didn't !!

This is the final layout of Bastille's throat with the actual points represented by Peco LR points and a single slip.

Bastille throat represented by Peco LR points.jpg

You can see that a curved crossover can be created by connecting the curved branch of one set of points with the straight branch  of another and that will turn the throat by one crossing angle. It's not a continuous curve but made up of straights and curves and from all accounts trains using Bastille did lurch quite a bit.

 

Though fascinated by the station I'm not actually planning to build a model of Paris Bastille. Running sequences of almost identical suburban trains hauled by identical tank locos at two minute intervals doesn't appeal that much. It does though illustrate rather well the principle of avoiding reverse curves, which with these tight radii surely would have caused problems. It also shows how pointwork with the same crossing angle facilitates a complex layout with a series of basic pieces. 

 

Thanks for that. It is a lovely track layout.

 

I remember the Bastille station coming up in a discussion about Minories related stations. Of course, you could always nick the plan, call it something else and run a much more varied service. It is a cracker of a plan and could have been designed especially for modelling. I may even put it away safely for future consideration, as it looks as though it would as work for a British layout as well as it would a French one.

 

The only downside of using two opposite handed points to take a crossover round a curve is that you end up with a curve-straight-curve run, which probably accounts for some of the "lurching" mentioned but it certainly an option if the choice of points is limited.

 

Going back to Buckingham, some of the curves are considerably tighter than 3'. There are one or two places, even on Leighton Buzzard, which are nearer 2'6" and possibly less. The design of he layout, avoiding reverse curves, coupled with clever design of locos and stock means that even the 0-4-4T loco can shunt bunker first around them without buffer locking. He was very clever!

 

Tony

[Mythocentric]

I agree with you about Ls and how Peter Denny made very good use of them. Leighton Buzzard (Linslade) was, according to an RM article by him about it, based on four foot curves but with three feet in a few places. I was though thinking more of an angled approach perhaps for a portable layout.

 

You don't actually need different radii for crossovers in a curved approach- the Chemin de Fer de l'Est certainly didn't !!

This is the final layout of Bastille's throat with the actual points represented by Peco LR points and a single slip.

Bastille throat represented by Peco LR points.jpg

You can see that a curved crossover can be created by connecting the curved branch of one set of points with the straight branch  of another and that will turn the throat by one crossing angle. It's not a continuous curve but made up of straights and curves and from all accounts trains using Bastille did lurch quite a bit.

 

Though fascinated by the station I'm not actually planning to build a model of Paris Bastille. Running sequences of almost identical suburban trains hauled by identical tank locos at two minute intervals doesn't appeal that much. It does though illustrate rather well the principle of avoiding reverse curves, which with these tight radii surely would have caused problems. It also shows how pointwork with the same crossing angle facilitates a complex layout with a series of basic pieces. 

 

 

Thanks for that. It is a lovely track layout.

 

I remember the Bastille station coming up in a discussion about Minories related stations. Of course, you could always nick the plan, call it something else and run a much more varied service. It is a cracker of a plan and could have been designed especially for modelling. I may even put it away safely for future consideration, as it looks as though it would as work for a British layout as well as it would a French one.

 

The only downside of using two opposite handed points to take a crossover round a curve is that you end up with a curve-straight-curve run, which probably accounts for some of the "lurching" mentioned but it certainly an option if the choice of points is limited.

 

Going back to Buckingham, some of the curves are considerably tighter than 3'. There are one or two places, even on Leighton Buzzard, which are nearer 2'6" and possibly less. The design of he layout, avoiding reverse curves, coupled with clever design of locos and stock means that even the 0-4-4T loco can shunt bunker first around them without buffer locking. He was very clever!

 

Tony

 

Perhaps this conversation may be better under it's own topic in the layout design section gentlemen? Then we could leave this thread clear to discuss it's original purpose.

 

Regards

 

Bill

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

And obviously Peco have done the impossible in O gauge already producing RTL BH points, crossings and double slips, all tooled for a market that is way smaller than the potential one we're talking about here.

 

I though this was a very valid point that seemed to have slipped attention...  clearly, RTL BH can be made for a niche market.  Given the physical scaling up, how does the price compare to Pecos OO/HO track?  Is it 2x, 3x or 4x?

[gordon s]

The smallest 0 gauge turnout is £36 on the Hatton's website compared to £11 for the 00 version.

 

http://www.ehattons.com/stocklist/1000407/1000590/1000690/0/Peco_Products_O_Gauge_1_43_Scale_Track_Code_124_Bullhead_Streamline_/prodlist.aspx

 

Edit:  One thing  that did occur to me.  Is Peco 0 gauge track on UK sleeper spacing or something unique to Peco?

Edited January 7, 2014 by gordon s

[ThaneofFife]

Maybe Pecos view is that O is seen as a growing market and 00 isnt hence the leap?

 

I think a medium 0 gauge point (finescale bullhead) is around £40 discounted at Hattons so id say about £46 rrp.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Not wishing to go too far off track (???), as an aside to the discussion, I wasn't aware that injection moulding has become something of a home hobby.

 

While some people have purchased secondhand and redundant injection moulding machines and using them in workshops or garages, others have taken advantage of the newer desktop machines that have been appearing in the last couple of years.

The desktop machines are literally that; they can sit on a desk or workbench.

 

One magazine article headlined a story, "Watch out 3D modellers, the Injection Moulding hobbyists are right behind you !".

 

People are even using CNC milling machines at home to produce highly detailed tools, for things like military models and World of Warcraft type items.

Fine chair & bolt details for model railway track seems to be well within the capability of such set-ups, from what I can gather.

For larger production runs, there a a number of injection Moulding tool makers who will produce your tools in very short time (providing your CAD is satisfactory) for only a few thousand £££'s.

 

There are various YouTube videos demonstrating all this.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather the type of injection moulding required for model railway track is called Insert Injection Moulding, or something similar?

Slightly more complex I gather, but not rocket science.

The difficult bit appears to be getting workable designs (in production terms) and final assembly of the moving parts (switch blades), which may be fiddly and certainly requires manual labour.

 

I posted this as I thought it might be a bit of light-hearted interest.

Some others may have thought like myself, that this sort of activity was only possible in, at the very least, a light industry context. It seems that's no longer the case.

 

Regards

Ron

 

 

.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Ron Ron Ron

[ThaneofFife]

Bastille throat represented by Peco LR points.jpg

 

the longer i stare at that track plan the more i think its a brilliant little package- at first questioning why it contained some extra turnouts that on the face of it were superfluous - but no, i can see how it all works now.  the flow is nice being on the curve and operationally i think you could have some really good playtime with that (presumably you would throw in another crossover (trailing) on the twin track mainline "off the page" on the right hand side to complete the plan nicely and allow trains to access every platform on arrival and vice versa.  also seems you can loco release from every platform and still have one train arriving or departing without conflict and not a headshunt in sight!   would fit nicely as a sort of glasgow queen street type layout with the rest of the platforms all hidden beyond an overbridge or station canopy.  i really do like it and I too will keep a copy of it    it could work for any country or era not just Paris, France

Edited January 7, 2014 by ThaneofFife

[sub39h]

The Peco geometry is spoiled (imho) by there insistence on using the same 12 degree divergence angle for everything which might give a lot of compatibility but it also reduces the benefit from the longer points, a more realistic range would be to have divergence angles matching the crossing angles and hence improving the reverse curve effect when creating a common crossover, for diamonds I would suggest a curved diamond designed to make a typical British double junction when used with the medium point, it would mean having both left and right hand diamonds but that has been done before I think. And a proper double junction is the main item missing from current rtp ranges.

Keith

 

Tillig manage two variants of their long point with a 10deg and a 6deg angle. The problem with doing something like this is that you'll then need two different diamond crossings. Their smaller points use 15deg iirc, so a third diamond crossing would be needed there as well. This will eat into profitability if they release all the different types of crossover, or you'd be back to needing a hand build solution if they didn't release the crossing you wanted. 

 

As I mentioned earlier whilst I would be happy with anyone entering the game I feel that we as consumers would be better of it i wasn't Peco because then Peco would probably respond with their own range which would yield one of two results: 1) they decide to release a different type of track to the one that was released before i.e. BH if the competitor is FB or vise versa or 2. they release a complimentary range which is aesthetically similar with different geometry which would then give us variety across 2 track systems. 

[martin_wynne]

One thing  that did occur to me.  Is Peco 0 gauge track on UK sleeper spacing or something unique to Peco?

 

Hi Gordon,

 

The Peco 0 gauge bullhead flexi-track is good representation of UK track. The main discrepancy is the actual rail section. It's not a very good representation of the BS-95R bullhead section, the foot part is too thin in height. Effectively it is a flat-bottom section in which the width of the foot is the same as the rail head. They did this so that it would work with the same rail joiners as their code 100 track. To anyone familiar with bullhead track it does look odd in close-up photos, but I imagine most users wouldn't notice.

 

The turnouts are a reasonably good representation of UK practice. The moulded turnout base is in two parts, a switch section and a crossing section. Most of the rails are assembled by sliding into the base, although the wing rails and vee rails are moulded in situ (tricky to do with a bullhead rail section). The switch blades are loose heels using an ordinary rail joiner as the pivot, but they are machined from solid rail. The turnouts have a long entry straight to the V-crossing, so that the same moulded base part can be used for both LH and RH turnouts, and also for the diamond crossing. This means that on the LH turnout the point and splice rails are very obviously back to front. The V-crossing angle is 8 degrees* (1:7.12 RAM). The check rails are or were on small carrier mouldings and the check rail gap was adjustable by turning a couple of screws -- I believe this is no longer the case, and other details may have changed. Anyone?

 

In Templot to get the best match to the rails I used a GWR 9ft curved switch. These Templot templates are accurate for the rail alignments and can be used for Peco footprint substitution, but are not recommended for actual construction. The rail ends correspond to the crossover mid-point for 80mm track centres, making the exit vee rails shorter than the prototype.

 

The timbering below is very close, but not a perfect match to Peco. I added the silly bent timber which Peco put on the exit to their turnouts.

 

 

More info and a Templot file available for download at: http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=722&forum_id=1#p5690

 

*p.s. in Templot you can enter a V-crossing angle in degrees by prefixing it with the letter k. i.e. I entered k8 as the crossing angle here.

 

All the above refers to the Peco bullhead track -- I don't have any information for the flat-bottom track, but I assume the geometry is the same.

 

edit: The two switch front timbers are actually ordinary sleepers (10" wide) as shown above. There is a setting for this in Templot. However prototypically it applies only to early pre-grouping track. In most later track the switch front section uses 12" wide timbers.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited January 7, 2014 by martin_wynne

[ThaneofFife]

i'm more bouyed by Pecos response to Mr Sharps than I ever was before and think they could be the boys if we push!

[billbedford]

I though this was a very valid point that seemed to have slipped attention...  clearly, RTL BH can be made for a niche market.  Given the physical scaling up, how does the price compare to Pecos OO/HO track?  Is it 2x, 3x or 4x?

 

SRPs are on this page

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hi Gordon,

 

The Peco 0 gauge bullhead flexi-track is good representation of UK track. The main discrepancy is the actual rail section. It's not a very good representation of the BS-95R bullhead section, the foot part is too thin in height. Effectively it is a flat-bottom section in which the width of the foot is the same as the rail head. They did this so that it would work with the same rail joiners as their code 100 track. To anyone familiar with bullhead track it does look odd in close-up photos, but I imagine most users wouldn't notice.

 

The turnouts are a reasonably good representation of UK practice. The moulded turnout base is in two parts, a switch section and a crossing section. Most of the rails are assembled by sliding into the base, although the wing rails and vee rails are moulded in situ (tricky to do with a bullhead rail section). The switch rails are loose heels using an ordinary rail joiner as the pivot, but they are machined from solid rail. The turnouts have a long entry straight to the V-crossing, so that the same moulded base part can be used for both LH and RH turnouts, and also for the diamond crossing. This means that on the LH turnout the point and splice rails are very obviously back to front. The V-crossing angle is 8 degrees* (1:7.12 RAM). The check rails are or were on small carrier mouldings and the check rail gap was adjustable by turning a couple of screws -- I believe this is no longer the case, and other details may have changed. Anyone?

 

In Templot to get the best match to the rails I used a GWR 9ft curved switch. These Templot templates are accurate for the rail alignments and can be used for Peco footprint substitution, but are not recommended for actual construction. The rail ends correspond to the crossover mid-point for 80mm track centres, making the exit vee rails shorter than the prototype.

 

The timbering below is very close, but not a perfect match to Peco. I added the silly bent timber which Peco put on the exit to their turnouts.

 

 

More info and a Templot file available for download at: http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=722&forum_id=1#p5690

*p.s. in Templot you can enter a V-crossing angle in degrees by prefixing it with the letter k. i.e. I entered k8 as the crossing angle here.

 

All the above refers to the Peco bullhead track -- I don't have any information for the flat-bottom track, but I assume the geometry is the same.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Martin, Once again many thanks for a very informative and helpful posting.

 

Bill Bedford was of the view that moulding for BH would be too difficult/expensive and yet Peco have indeed managed it (and for many years past) with these O gauge points.

 

What I find most interesting in your analysis:

 

1) They are built out of two separate parts - as suggested by me and Dr Gerbil-Fritters;

2) Unlike the HO, only the crossing has been moulded into the base. The rest has been assembled by hand.

 

Both of those "tricks" have potential to help with this project. In particular the second, because it would make it possible to offer in a kit form that had all the difficult bit done - not only because that would be so much cheaper but because it would allow the end user to modify e.g. slightly curved formations.

[gordon s]

the longer i stare at that track plan the more i think its a brilliant little package- at first questioning why it contained some extra turnouts that on the face of it were superfluous - but no, i can see how it all works now.  the flow is nice being on the curve and operationally i think you could have some really good playtime with that (presumably you would throw in another crossover (trailing) on the twin track mainline "off the page" on the right hand side to complete the plan nicely and allow trains to access every platform on arrival and vice versa.  also seems you can loco release from every platform and still have one train arriving or departing without conflict and not a headshunt in sight!   would fit nicely as a sort of glasgow queen street type layout with the rest of the platforms all hidden beyond an overbridge or station canopy.  i really do like it and I too will keep a copy of it    it could work for any country or era not just Paris, France

 

Apologies for going off topic, but I was also taken with the Bastille plan and included the plan as part of an ET scheme.  I made various changes to the crossovers to suit UK running rules and completed the whole thing in Templot.  Sadly I never got round to building it completely as I realised the whole layout plan was just too much for one person to build and I eventually went for something simpler.  

 

The terminus wasn't that complex, it was the rest of my plan that was the issue…:-)

Edited January 7, 2014 by gordon s

[Joseph_Pestell]

I though this was a very valid point that seemed to have slipped attention...  clearly, RTL BH can be made for a niche market.  Given the physical scaling up, how does the price compare to Pecos OO/HO track?  Is it 2x, 3x or 4x?

 

It's not quite directly comparable. Of course, there is far more raw material in the 0 Gauge point, but the cost of assembly would be much the same if it were not for the fact that, as Martin has kindly pointed out, the 0 Gauge stuff is much more hand-made than the H0.

[Adams442T]

It seems to me that we are realistically faced with three choices here (ignoring for now the very essential questions of track geometry raised above that need consensus). 

 

They are IMHO do we push for 'better British 00 turnouts' from Peco, the point (pun intended) having been brought to their attention, by presenting them with the consensus position reached hopefully at some stage here. 

 

Or do we do the same thing in the forthcoming polls to hopefully encourage an existing manufacturer (probably realistically only Peco as SMP and C&L are, I think, only ever going to be kit orientated) the difficulty being only those in this discussion will know that some geometry compromises have been agreed already.

 

Or finally do we 'do it ourselves' in supporting Joseph, perhaps with the sort of 'crowd-funding' which has brought many and varied projects to fruition elsewhere.  The main difficulty with this is of course that now Peco are aware of an increased interest they may respond by attempting to kill it off by producing and promoting their own system, which with their greater publicity machine (RM) and outlets they could easily do.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Adams442T

[Budgie]

The only downside of using two opposite handed points to take a crossover round a curve is that you end up with a curve-straight-curve run, which probably accounts for some of the "lurching" mentioned but it certainly an option if the choice of points is limited.

Which is also what you get with a double junction where the diamond crossing is straight and the track continues its curve beyond. There is at least one of those on the Croydon Tramlink at Sandilands, and yes, it does cause "lurching".

[martin_wynne]

You can see that a curved crossover can be created by connecting the curved branch of one set of points with the straight branch of another and that will turn the throat by one crossing angle.

 

This will work only for low-speed situations such as a terminus because it puts one of the switch deflections in the running line. In a normal running line crossover, both turnouts are always of the same hand, even when the crossover is curved. This allows for full speed running on the main roads, the speed restriction applying to the crossover road only.

 

In a curved crossover, this requires that the inner turnout should have contraflexure (negative curving radius in Templot), i.e. looking a bit like a Y-turnout. Here's a nice prototype picture showing that:

 

From: http://bristol-rail.co.uk/wiki/Filton_Abbey_Wood

 

As far as I know, no RTL track system has ever offered turnouts with contraflexure. The creation of proper curved crossovers in RTL is therefore impossible. Since such crossovers are quite common on the prototype and can help save a great deal of space in a model, this is one of the strongest reasons for handbuilding track. No doubt if the new track is good enough, some modellers will choose to mix it with handbuilt track for this reason.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[chris p bacon]

As far as I know, no RTL track system has ever offered turnouts with contraflexure. The creation of proper curved crossovers in RTL is therefore impossible. Since such crossovers are quite common on the prototype and can help save a great deal of space in a model, this is one of the strongest reasons for handbuilding track. No doubt if the new track is good enough, some modellers will choose to mix it with handbuilt track for this reason.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

It is this reason why I had to give up with Peco and pursue the handbuilt option.

 

I tried using curved and straight pointwork but it was too difficult to acheive a flowing line, it would be ok for one line on a crossover but not the other.

 

There are now 120 sheets of A3 (Templot) covering the baseboards !

[Pacific231G]

Perhaps this conversation may be better under it's own topic in the layout design section gentlemen? Then we could leave this thread clear to discuss it's original purpose.

 

Regards

 

Bill

I was really quoting Bastille to make the point that standard off the peg turnouts and crossings, which is all we will ever get as ready to lay,  are not unprototypical even with very complex trackwork , that they can be of fairly small radii even at a main line terminus and that you can make up curved crossovers from them. The SNCF list which I have of eight left hand points, eleven right hand points, one symmetrical three way point and one single slip used at Bastille does read like a shopping list for the local 1:1 scale model shop. Along with one of two standard crossing angles and the rail weight (46 and 50 Kg/m), points with the same crossing angle are even quoted as short or long. I assume that this standardisation of complete units of trackwork enabled very complex trackwork to be redesigned and relaid quickly without weeks of service disruption  A wider discussion of throat design beyond that probably does need its own topic. 

 

What I don't know is to what extent this use of complete off the shelf turnouts etc. was traditional practice in Great Britain as opposed to laying individually designed pointwork on site.

[Mike Storey]

Very interesting indeed. (I must admit I thought the recently introduced bi-bloc track must be a very specialist item). An improved code 75 wood sleepered FB flexible track would make some sense now they've upped their game with the code 75 concrete sleepered flexible 

 

Actually, it is a sharp move as bi-block is now common across France and many other countries in Europe, but I think only one other manf. produced it (although I have never seen it in stock). So it has a big market here. I continue to think Peco are innovative and the letter back from them shows an opening door for our purposes on this thread.

[Joseph_Pestell]

This is moving on faster than I could ever have imagined. With help from some of the posters here, I have taken the plunge and moved ahead a couple of phases this morning.

 

I have the feeling that it may now be a question of "when and who" rather than "if".

 

Others had mentioned possible production in Austria. My thoughts had been more towards Japan or the USA. But a bit of research (isn't the internet wonderful?) has revealed that there are very suitable UK partners.

 

Edited to add: This message comes to you with a two-hour delay as we have just had a power cut here.

[ThaneofFife]

Very interesting indeed. (I must admit I thought the recently introduced bi-bloc track must be a very specialist item). An improved code 75 wood sleepered FB flexible track would make some sense now they've upped their game with the code 75 concrete sleepered flexible 

 

 

I must have missed this intro.  So Peco have improved the code 75 concrete flexi - I wasnt aware of this.

 

Does anybody have any pics they could load up of the old concrete flexi track next to this new improved flexi?  Be good to see what Peco have done - have they just spaced out the sleepers slightly or have the sleeper sizes been revised too?

[Joseph_Pestell]

Actually, it is a sharp move as bi-block is now common across France and many other countries in Europe, but I think only one other manf. produced it (although I have never seen it in stock). So it has a big market here. I continue to think Peco are innovative and the letter back from them shows an opening door for our purposes on this thread.

 

It was already fairly common 30+ years ago. I first remember seeing it in Spain (south of Port Bou) in the early 70s.

 

As I have already noted, if Peco had brought it out back when I had a shop in France, I could have converted a lot of people from Roco to Peco.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I must have missed this intro.  So Peco have improved the code 75 concrete flexi - I wasnt aware of this.

 

Does anybody have any pics they could load up of the old concrete flexi track next to this new improved flexi?  Be good to see what Peco have done - have they just spaced out the sleepers slightly or have the sleeper sizes been revised too?

 

When I was at Roxley Models on Friday, I could not see any significant improvement. Definitely still HO measurements.