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

[Pacific231G]

A Tortoise or similar stall motor has comfortably enough power to hold flexible switch blades against stock rails (I have built P4 points with this arrangement). Also a Blue Point manual switch should have adequate spring force.

The Tillig H0m point blades have a flexible length of 45mm but a throw of about 3.5mm (far more than you'd need in P4) so do have to take a lot of bending and I suspect that a prototype turnout that short (R=490mm equivalent to 42m in H0) would be loose heeled. Obviously when the blades are very short the bending force for a particular throw is correspondingly higher. On my layout they're actually driven by Fulgurex point motors. These will throw them but have to be carefully set up as they can only just manage the job. It was the inability of the Caboose Industry ground throws to throw the Tillig points that surprised me as I have used them perfectly happily with Shinohara and home built turnouts in HO.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Pacific231G

[highpeak]

I think the use of laser-cut plywood for the Bullfrog is down to Fast Tracks owning a laser cutter! They started with laser cut tie bases for turnouts (which I think Brian Lewis also tried out when he owned C&L) and were probably casting around for other track-related items to make.

The machines go together pretty quickly, but the main reason I linked to the instructions were to see if anyone thought the ball bearing/spring locking method might be adaptable to a smaller unit that could go underneath the stretcher bar in place of the current Peco spring module. I was thinking of something that would be a clip fit. It would require space in the baseboard, but then so does the Peco solenoid. This would be smaller than that.

Of course, you don't need this if you are going to depend on some form of machine to actuate the turnout, but I was pondering whether you could provide something that would be close to the "open the packet and lay it" option that Streamline provides while avoiding the clunkiness of that spring. I suspect you wouldn't be able to make a stretcher bar that would be strong and rigid enough to deflect the ball bearing against the spring, but I figured I'd share the Bullfrog as I doubt they have bothered trying to market it in the UK.

[martin_wynne]

The Tillig H0m point blades have a flexible length of 45mm but a throw of about 3.5mm

 

That's far more than is needed. The prototype switch opening is 4.25" = 1.4mm scale. The usual setting for finescale 00 is 1.75mm (the thickness of a 20p coin).

 

The flexible length should be sufficient to allow a flangeway clearance all along behind the open switch blade. That's 1.0mm for EM and 00-SF, 1.3mm for 00-BF. It is important to maintain as much strength in the blade tip as possible, by leaving the rail foot intact on the inside and the full web thickness below the angled planing of the rail head. If the blade tip is too flexible it will bend instead of flexing the full rail.

 

The blades should be set initially so that they each lie naturally firm against the stock rail. They are then attached to the stretcher bar to give the required opening, sprung against each other. After which they will naturally lie central between the stock rails. It then requires only a small force to drive them each way.

 

Some dialogue with track handbuilders might be helpful here. Folks have been successfully building and driving switches for years.

 

Martin.

[Neil]

.... Some dialogue with track handbuilders might be helpful here. Folks have been successfully building and driving switches for years.

 

That would be me then. If we're talking bullhead in 00 then I can't see why loose heals would be needed for any point configuration (apart from following a prototype so equipped). Unlike Martin I set up blades on the tie bar however they fall, sometimes the tie bar wants to sit centrally but often it ends up biassed to one side. However the forces are so small that whatever means of moving the point, toggle switch, slide switch or motor, is used there is no problem.

[gordon s]

I would agree with Neil.  Never been a problem in any pointwork I have built, although I would say the greater the distance that the first fixed point of the blade is from the tie bar, the lower the force needed to move the blades.  I normally set that first fixed point 12 sleepers from the tie bar on any pointwork.  Of course this may not be possible on tighter radii and as the distance to the first fixed point reduces the force will increase.  Another possible reason for setting a minimum radius of 36", but I accept compromises may need to be made.

[Pacific231G]

That's far more than is needed. The prototype switch opening is 4.25" = 1.4mm scale. The usual setting for finescale 00 is 1.75mm (the thickness of a 20p coin).

 

The flexible length should be sufficient to allow a flangeway clearance all along behind the open switch blade. That's 1.0mm for EM and 00-SF, 1.3mm for 00-BF. It is important to maintain as much strength in the blade tip as possible, by leaving the rail foot intact on the inside and the full web thickness below the angled planing of the rail head. If the blade tip is too flexible it will bend instead of flexing the full rail.

 

The blades should be set initially so that they each lie naturally firm against the stock rail. They are then attached to the stretcher bar to give the required opening, sprung against each other. After which they will naturally lie central between the stock rails. It then requires only a small force to drive them each way.

 

Hi Martin

That's true and I've no idea why the switch opening is so wide - far wider than the check rail or crossing clearances.  Peco's H0m (12mm gauge) points are much the same. The Tillig points are constructed to spring naturally into the branch position,  though they don't seat firmly enough for a reliable sprung point,  and that would increase the force needed to drive them in the opposite direction.

 

 

For H0m Tilling are also odd in that their plain track sleepering is (or was when I bought it) different from their pointwork at ~130/m for plain track but ~120/m for points.  I did raise this with them but they just said it was so.

Their point timbering also looks a bit odd but may be is following German NG practice.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Pacific231G

[Grovenor]

I suspect that a prototype turnout that short (R=490mm equivalent to 42m in H0) would be loose heeled.

On the DLR we have a lot of 40 m radius switches which all have fixed heel, ie spring blades, to help with the bending a section of the rail foot between two timbers is removed giving effectively a bullhead profile for a couple of feet which reduces the bending force required.

Keith

[polybear]

Joseph_Pestell said (in Post No. 1):

 

My solution would be to take a range of existing HO track, retain all the rail parts and just give it a new base with sleepering to accepted 4mm dimensions. That should reduce tooling costs considerably.

 

Just to kick off the wishlist, my idea of what would be needed:

 

Timber sleepered flextrack

Concrete sleepered flextrack

 

 

Hi,

I've only just found this Topic - 42 Pages in 5 weeks has to be an RMWeb record...    I've not read all the Topic posts so apologies if the following has already been said:

 

I would comment that C&L already offer Exactoscale 00 Track Bases to suit FB Rail with Concrete Sleepers in 2m lengths:

 

http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=346_375_383

 

In addition, the tooling costs for moulding new plastic bases for the turnouts will probably make your eyes water - I recall a post (on E4um?) by Brian Lewis (ex. C&L) several years ago in which he said that the refurbishment (not new) costs for just a few existing moulds was (from memory) something like 30K....

 

I'd love to see accurate RTR turnouts with true 00 sleeper spacing, however I suspect that the development/manufacturing costs involved will be too great for individuals to take on (unless they have VERY deep pockets); if PECO thought it was advantageous to offer such a product then they would surely have done so - but this would presumably hit sales of their existing 00 products with HO sleeper spacing?

 

polybear

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2014 by polybear

[highpeak]

Post 937 on page 38 is a summary of the story so far by the originator of the thread.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Hi,

I've only just found this Topic - 42 Pages in 5 weeks has to be an RMWeb record...    I've not read all the Topic posts so apologies if the following has already been said:

Hi Polybear.

While it would be an awful lot to read, if you were to go back through the thread I think you would find that your following points have been reasonably if not completely covered.

I think a few myths may have scotched along the way.

 

 

I would comment that C&L already offer Exactoscale 00 Track Bases to suit FB Rail with Concrete Sleepers in 2m lengths:

 

I think everyone knows and appreciates that already, but your link may be a timely reminder for those now thinking about BH turnouts, in light of the information that there may possibly be some change in store on the FB RTL front.

 

 

In addition, the tooling costs for moulding new plastic bases for the turnouts will probably make your eyes water - I recall a post (on E4um?) by Brian Lewis (ex. C&L) several years ago in which he said that the refurbishment (not new) costs for just a few existing moulds was (from memory) something like 30K....

I strongly suspect most people contributing to this topic already understood that tooling costs are generally very high, as indeed is the case with RTR models; however we have since learned that things have changed considerably, in that new technology and competition has brought cost right down for some types of small scale tooling and injection moulding production.

I get the impression there are quite a number of companies that can do this sort of work for a fraction of the cost that it was only a few years ago. It's still not cheap for an individual though.

 

Another interesting thing that has come to light, is that there are even hobbyists doing their own injection moulding and even some doing CNC milling on small machines to create the necessary tools..

It never ceases to amaze me what people do with their spare time.

 

 

I'd love to see accurate RTR turnouts with true 00 sleeper spacing, however I suspect that the development/manufacturing costs involved will be too great for individuals to take on (unless they have VERY deep pockets); if PECO thought it was advantageous to offer such a product then they would surely have done so - but this would presumably hit sales of their existing 00 products with HO sleeper spacing?

 

Firstly a pedantic point of order. They may label their track products as 00/H0, but strictly speaking the reference to 00 doesn't relate to appearance, only running capability.

 

A number of contributors have hypothesised over the reasons why Peco haven't done it (00 RTL track) over all these years, but the commercial world and the world of modelling have moved on and I believe, as others evidently also do, that time is up for the old status quo. Have a read back over a few pages to find some of the rational for this line of thinking.

The bottom line is that it's no longer in their interest if they don't innovate and evolve, so it's come as welcome news to learn that Peco are at last looking at a possible move into RTL track, more appropriate to 00.

 

All we can do as modellers, is to get behind the call for such a change to take place and help create the environment in which it becomes more attractive, commercially, for a company like Peco (or anyone else) to take the plunge.

If it happens, it can only be a great benefit for the hobby IMHO.

 

Regards

Ron

 

 

 

.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Ron Ron Ron

[Joseph_Pestell]

Great summary, Ron. I will amend OP to highlight it.

[Trog]

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 !

 

That is a bit of a leap for me to consider.

 

Could Martin perhaps make available a few predesigned Templot patterns of Peco matching units for units Peco do not make?

 

Something that matches the Peco geometry, and uses rail stripped from flexitrack so the risk of explaining to the wife why you have bought loads of parts and spent hours producing an expensive bin filler is minimised. As a beginner I would not dare to try and build all the S&C for a layout by hand, and even if I was feeling brave I would not want to put off turning the first wheel for months.

 

However I would be happy to try and make an odd unit that was not in the Peco range. Say a fixed diamond with a third radius curve in one road so I could make a double junction with the diverging road on a curve. Or perhaps a crossover to fit between a third and fourth / second and third radius curve.

 

Perhaps such units could be described as Ploto? 

[Grovenor]

Could Martin perhaps make available a few predesigned Templot patterns of Peco matching units for units Peco do not make?

Martin has put years of effort into the design of Templot and made it available free of charge, he also goes out of his way to help users to learn it. Templot can generate pretty well any point and crossing design you can think of but, IMHO it is unreasonable to expect Martin to create custom designs to individual requirements. Perhaps YOU could make a little effort and learn to use Templot yourself.

Keith

[Joseph_Pestell]

That is a bit of a leap for me to consider.

 

Could Martin perhaps make available a few predesigned Templot patterns of Peco matching units for units Peco do not make?

 

Something that matches the Peco geometry, and uses rail stripped from flexitrack so the risk of explaining to the wife why you have bought loads of parts and spent hours producing an expensive bin filler is minimised. As a beginner I would not dare to try and build all the S&C for a layout by hand, and even if I was feeling brave I would not want to put off turning the first wheel for months.

 

However I would be happy to try and make an odd unit that was not in the Peco range. Say a fixed diamond with a third radius curve in one road so I could make a double junction with the diverging road on a curve. Or perhaps a crossover to fit between a third and fourth / second and third radius curve.

 

Perhaps such units could be described as Ploto? 

 

You will also understand more about trackbuilding if you have created the template yourself.

 

There is a good new thread on building your own pointwork from a beginner (who is doing very well). He started as you intend to do with recovered FB rail before realising that this is rather more difficult than BH.

[Trog]

My whole point was that having successfully made something from a Templot template.

Learning Templot to make more specialised units then becomes something that is obviously worthwhile.

Before you have proved you can make something it is just another overhead, something you have to spend time and effort on for possibly no result.

 

As for custom designs I deliberately tried to suggest things that would be of use to, and hence a lead into hand built track for as many people as possible.

 

It was just a suggestion as I don't need any track at the moment myself, and there seemed to be a thought running through the thread that perhaps more people should make their own S&C.

[Ron Ron Ron]

....Learning Templot to make more specialised units then becomes something that is obviously worthwhile.

Before you have proved you can make something it is just another overhead, something you have to spend time and effort on for possibly no result.

 

As for custom designs I deliberately tried to suggest things that would be of use to, and hence a lead into hand built track for as many people as possible.

All very commendable Trog, but with due respect, this topic is about RTL track and not hand-building or encouraging hand-building; which is another topic on its own.

 

 

It was just a suggestion as I don't need any track at the moment myself, and there seemed to be a thought running through the thread that perhaps more people should make their own S&C.

I don't think many, if any people would disagree with you.

Any aspect of the hobby where a greater degree of craftsmanship is successfully demonstrated, can only be an inspiration to others.

Building our own track is an aspiration that many would probably hold, if only..... !

 

I would support any move to encourage more people to have a go at building their own track work, however, you cannot ignore that RTL is the realty for most modellers - and at all levels of skill.

Because they choose to buy of-the-peg, so to speak, is that any reason to deny them a product that suits their purpose as best as possible, particularly in the way of appearance?

 

I cannot think of any reason to not support the call for better model track products, whether they're RTL or hand-built. So let's encourage more people to have a go, but don't let that detract from the need to improve the RTL options available.

 

 

.

 

 

Edited January 12, 2014 by Ron Ron Ron

[Joseph_Pestell]

Finally got round to adding a poll.

 

Before anyone points out the obvious, I am quite a competent statistician and know that RMWeb readers are not a statistically valid sample.

[AJ427]

Finally got round to adding a poll.

 

Before anyone points out the obvious, I am quite a competent statistician and know that RMWeb readers are not a statistically valid sample.

 

Q1 asks which track and pointwork we currently use but there's no option for C&L/Exactoscale/SMP plaintrack (which could be used with hand/kit-built or current RTL turnouts). Are all these options to be other?

[Joseph_Pestell]

Q1 asks which track and pointwork we currently use but there's no option for C&L/Exactoscale/SMP plaintrack (which could be used with hand/kit-built or current RTL turnouts). Are all these options to be other?

 

This really more about the pointwork than the plain track.

 

I will try to modify the question but I don't know if it can be done.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Interesting results so far but not a big enough sample to be truly representative even of RMWeb.

 

I am perhaps most surprised by the number of 00 modellers who have opted for Peco's Code 83. That suggests a considerable interest in going to more prototypically correct geometry - even at the expense of wrong sleepering and at a higher price than the Code 75.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Joseph_Pestell

[Ron Ron Ron]

...I am perhaps most surprised by the number of 00 modellers who have opted for Peco's Code 83. That suggests a considerable interest in going to more prototypically correct geometry - even at the expense of wrong sleepering and at a higher price than the Code 75.

 

Maybe that's because your question isn't specific to use for British outline in 00.

It just asks what 16.5mm track/points have been used. That could be US H0, European H0 or whatever.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Not necessarily, Joseph.  I am an HO scale US outline modeller using code 83, but I would build an OO UK layout if I could buy rtl BH track and points (with 'proper' geometry) and if I could use 3 link couplings.  

 

That's one reason I've been tinkering with O gauge (Peco code 124 BH) but space and expense is a bit of an issue

 

For me, the deal breaker with OO isn't the incorrect track gauge, it's the unrealistic track and the unrealistic couplings.  

 

I currently model HO because (as well as liking American and Chinese rolling stock etc) the track and couplings look much better (and in the case of the couplers, work like the real thing) than OO right out of the box.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Maybe that's because your question isn't specific to use for British outline in 00.

It just asks what 16.5mm track/points have been used. That could be US H0, European H0 or whatever.

 

I suppose it could be. One would hope that with the thread being about 00 that only 00 modellers would be responding. The stated intentions to change to new trackwork suggests that is the case.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Not necessarily, Joseph.  I am an HO scale US outline modeller using code 83, but I would build an OO UK layout if I could buy rtl BH track and points (with 'proper' geometry) and if I could use 3 link couplings.  

 

That's one reason I've been tinkering with O gauge (Peco code 124 BH) but space and expense is a bit of an issue

 

For me, the deal breaker with OO isn't the incorrect track gauge, it's the unrealistic track and the unrealistic couplings.  

 

I currently model HO because (as well as liking American and Chinese rolling stock etc) the track and couplings look much better (and in the case of the couplers, work like the real thing) than OO right out of the box.

 

If there were many more in your situation, it really would be worthwhile for Hornby and Bachmann to up their game on 00 track.

[Ron Ron Ron]

I suppose it could be. One would hope that with the thread being about 00 that only 00 modellers would be responding. The stated intentions to change to new trackwork suggests that is the case.

 

Of course, but then how many times have you witnessed people on RMWeb not reading things properly before posting a reply or shooting from the hip?

 

I think there may be a clue in the fact some people have selected Peco 83 in the poll, as well as other track track selections.

Is the Code 83 for their "other" interests, e.g. US H0 and not British outline use?

If you look at the 5 votes for Peco Code 83, three of those voters are modelling US outline !!!

 

.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Ron Ron Ron