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

[Joseph_Pestell]

There is a finite amount of new information and opinion to keep any thread alive, so I don't worry overmuch that the pace of cntributions has slowed a bit. There will always be people who find the thread subsequently and make the occasional new contribution.

 

I think that there has been a very useful exchange of views and it has certainly helped me to understand what will be involved in bringing this product to the marketplace.

 

Thane of Fife is right that we are dealing with a compromise right from the beginning. We have to accept that as a given due to the level of past investment (both manufacturers and modellers) in 4mm scale/00. It's a great pity that new entrants (Lima, Airfix, Mainline) in the 1970s did not take the chance to go to HO and persist with it.

 

There seems to be general agreement that to avoid a "narrow gauge look", sleepers should be reduced in length as per BRMSB recommendations. There is perhaps some merit in the idea that the sleepers should also be reduced in width (to stay in proportion) and the gap between sleepers likewise. But probably not by quite so much. Martin's drawings have shown that, particularly for the tighter radius pointwork, scale width sleepers at scale spacings can look quite wrong.

[martin_wynne]

The comment about as soon as you run 4mm stock on 00 gauge track it looks wrong is something I dont agree on.

 

I said the exact opposite. I said running 4mm scale stock on H0 scale track looks wrong. The post to which I was replying was suggesting scaling down an EM gauge template to 16.5mm gauge, thereby reducing the timber spacings in proportion to the gauge, in effect producing H0 scale track.

 

That is the opposite of the the thrust of this topic. I was supporting this topic, not arguing against it.

 

However, those arguing for proper 00 gauge track need to be careful. I think that post may in fact represent the views of many. When many modellers see the new 00 track, they may not like it after all. The existing small timbering from Peco does disguise the very short geometry of the Peco range. With correct 4mm scale timber spacing, such short turnouts are going to look very industrial. Be careful what you wish for.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Grovenor]

However, those arguing for proper 00 gauge track need to be careful. I think that post may in fact represent the views of many. When many modellers see the new 00 track, they may not like it after all. The existing small timbering from Peco does disguise the very short geometry of the Peco range. With correct 4mm scale timber spacing, such short turnouts are going to look very industrial. Be careful what you wish for.

Which is what I was getting at when I mentioned people not buying enough Formoway, the above viewpoint from Martin is just the one Peco used in advertising Streamline and which effectively defeated all the competition within a few years.

Keith

[Kenton]

 

maybe people are becoming weary of hearing the same messages and road to nowhere arguments.

Maybe you are correct on that one at least.

 

It is just about the same most debate on track scale/gauge. It seems to end up stuck in the same limbo.

 

Probably why Peco track keeps on selling.

 

I am another of the "few" who actually doesn't care too much about appearance and it is far more about reliability and off the shelf and out of the box RTL. If I really cared about appearance I would probably follow most folk and go P4 (but that means giving up the convenience and reliability and building my own track)

 

I have indicated here (not in the Poll) I would probably buy better looking track if it was available in favour of Peco BUT and it is a very big BUT on if it was reliable and available in the dimensions suitable.

[t-b-g]

I said the exact opposite. I said running 4mm scale stock on H0 scale track looks wrong. The post to which I was replying was suggesting scaling down an EM gauge template to 16.5mm gauge, thereby reducing the timber spacings in proportion to the gauge, in effect producing H0 scale track.

 

That is the opposite of the the thrust of this topic. I was supporting this topic, not arguing against it.

 

However, those arguing for proper 00 gauge track need to be careful. I think that post may in fact represent the views of many. When many modellers see the new 00 track, they may not like it after all. The existing small timbering from Peco does disguise the very short geometry of the Peco range. With correct 4mm scale timber spacing, such short turnouts are going to look very industrial. Be careful what you wish for.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Not quite HO Martin.

 

I use 4mm scale components, laid out to an approximately 3.5mm plan. Perhaps I am using OO/HO track, as advertised by Peco for many years.

 

Your last paragraph sums up exactly what I a getting at, disguising the gauge by using scale components at adjusted spacings.

 

I am also not against better looking track for RTL in OO. I am just not convinced that replacing the present HO influenced Peco points with a nearer 4mm scale equivalent will actually help.

 

The Peco points have quite noticably underscale sleepers for 4mm. If those sleepers were replaced with ones to correct 4mm widths, based on a shorter than scale sleeper length (starting at 8')  and a slightly narrower than scale spacing (approximately to HO standards), you get OO to look as good (to me) as it possibly can.

 

My posting was designed to throw a positive suggestion into the thread for discussion and for people to think about.

 

It was in no way intended as negative or to send the discussion down a "dead end".

 

Kenton is quite right about such discussions usually going nowhere. Unless there is some sort of agreement at this stage, as to what makes OO track look better, then there is no hope of producing any, so this has to be the time to thrash out some form of broad agreement that has some level of support.

 

I have, at least, put a positive and (hopefully) reasoned suggestion forward. If people don't like it, that is fine by me.

 

If RTL points were available in a large range of shapes and sizes, which look like the ones I know I can make, then my days of building OO points would be over. If a range of OO points with true 4mm sleeper spacings came out, it could stay on the shelf for me, as Martin says (and I have also been saying) it almost certainly wouldn't look right.

 

Tony

[Harry Lime]

Having followed this thread from the start, I have found the discussions to be informative, if slightly polarized at times.

 

I am not sure whether it was the intention of the OP, but it has pushed me into considering trying to make the pointwork for my home layout look slightly more prototypical. I have happily used Peco points for many years, accepting that sacrificing accuracy of pointwork for speed of building a layout is something that many of us may do in order to get trains running. However, with the arrival of a C+L kit, I hope to develop my understanding of the mechanics of a point, as well as hoping that my first attempt may not be my last. It may slow me down somewhat but that is a price that I am willing to pay, as well as the higher cost of such kits!

[Clive Mortimore]

Maybe you are correct on that one at least.

 

It is just about the same most debate on track scale/gauge. It seems to end up stuck in the same limbo.

 

Probably why Peco track keeps on selling.

 

I am another of the "few" who actually doesn't care too much about appearance and it is far more about reliability and off the shelf and out of the box RTL. If I really cared about appearance I would probably follow most folk and go P4 (but that means giving up the convenience and reliability and building my own track)

 

I have indicated here (not in the Poll) I would probably buy better looking track if it was available in favour of Peco BUT and it is a very big BUT on if it was reliable and available in the dimensions suitable.

Hi Kenton

 

You are correct with stating it is the reliability of Peco that makes it a top seller.

 

As you say if you were concerned about the appearance you probably would go for P4. I did, joined the scalefour society, and purchased Templot. Using a BR drawing of Tinsley yard, I drew the track plan for small two road diesel servicing shed with Templot. Went off to scaleforum, cheque book in one pocket, cash and credit card in the other. Looked for suitable track, wooden sleeper flat bottom, not a rare combination. One company tried to sell me concrete sleepers with bullhead rail as "modern image track" and another offered me concrete sleepers with flatbottom rail, both looked at me as if I was mad wanting flat bottom rails mounted on wooden sleepers. As for flat bottom components for point work, "nobody wants them" was the attitude presented. It was suggested that I could use Peco's pandrol clips on wooden sleepers, real wood or plastic. Apart form no one having the Peco pandrol clips on sale, they are not right for Tinsley. There is a mixture of BR1, BR2  and MRC baseplates on for the flat bottom track. There are sections of bullhead and some concrete sleepers with MRC baseplates in the yard apart from two panels of concrete sleepers not in the loco servicing depot. I will not mention the availability of wheels suitable for diesels at the show. Alan Gibson was kind enough to give me a catalogue of his products. I left the show after buying some books I could have brought the day before at the Mid Essex club show.

 

The woes of being a "Modern Image" modeller, modelling the 1960s is not historical enough. Tinsley closed in 1998, the service shed was not used for some years before that date but still not historical.

 

The 00 and Peco layout was kept.

 

Today Colin Craig produces the correct type of baseplates.

[Joseph_Pestell]

That of course is a further complexity. Others have mentioned that there are different types of chair for bullhead rail and, as Clive mentions, there are many different fixings for FB as well.

 

One won't cover all those variables in RtL but one could still have something that looks a lot better than Peco's 100 and 75 ranges (as their own 83 proves)

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...However, those arguing for proper 00 gauge track need to be careful. I think that post may in fact represent the views of many. When many modellers see the new 00 track, they may not like it after all. The existing small timbering from Peco does disguise the very short geometry of the Peco range. With correct 4mm scale timber spacing, such short turnouts are going to look very industrial. Be careful what you wish for...

Which brings in the question of the range to be offered, and why I feel that something of similar dimensions to the current Peco Streamline 'large radius' point would make a suitable 'toe in the water' RTL starter to test the market with. The nominal 36" radius SMP plastic based point kit probably marks the bottom limit of the range. It looks like what it represents, the tight curvature of points in a restricted space steam era goods yard.

 

No getting away from this: better track needs more realistic track plan = space; that's if it is to look any good. You can still use small radius curves and points off scene for compactness in your return loops, storage yards and so forth, enabled by the OO compromise. But in the scenic area, be prepared for nigh on a yard and a half of high speed crossover. Which will look very fine indeed, especially as your current OO standard locos and stock snake sinuously through it..

[Joseph_Pestell]

Which brings in the question of the range to be offered, and why I feel that something of similar dimensions to the current Peco Streamline 'large radius' point would make a suitable 'toe in the water' RTL starter to test the market with. The nominal 36" radius SMP plastic based point kit probably marks the bottom limit of the range. It looks like what it represents, the tight curvature of points in a restricted space steam era goods yard.

 

No getting away from this: better track needs more realistic track plan = space; that's if it is to look any good. You can still use small radius curves and points off scene for compactness in your return loops, storage yards and so forth, enabled by the OO compromise. But in the scenic area, be prepared for nigh on a yard and a half of high speed crossover. Which will look very fine indeed, especially as your current OO standard locos and stock snake sinuously through it..

 

Either more space or changed layout design.

 

Going back to SMP 36" radius point, I think that Martin's drawing showed very clearly that at such tight radii, correct sleeper spacing does not in fact give the right look.

 

A #6 turnout designed to give a scale "6 foot" has much the same radius as the Peco large radius point (real radius not nominal) and is only very slightly longer. Appearance of trains running over it (see Pacific 231s posts) will be much improved though due to the lesser angle of deviation, 9.5 rather than 12. Ultimately though, really good mainline running needs at least #8 turnouts which add about 75mm each which can soon mount up over the whole length of a layout.

[Richard Lee]

Here is a picture with Marcway 36" at the top, with a (badly made) SMP plastic based kit below:

 

 

For my layout, something like 36" radius points is about right.  Have a feeling that having to use much larger points would tend to make things more difficult for me, and would be a reason not to choose them.  If I bought Marcway again, then I would consider using the 48" radius ones, but would have to think a lot before I went 60".  The big scenic curve goes down to 30" in the middle, so I didn't see a lot of point in going for much larger radius points.

 

The SMP kits gave trouble with my Hornby M7s, and several of the wagons.  The Terriers seemed to like them, though.  I kept them, and might use them for a little side project involving an LBSC branch line which is restricted because of a wooden bridge to the mainland.

[gordon s]

I was track building last night, so to give you an idea of space, here's two C10's with a radius of around 2.0m on 50mm track centres.  They measure 800mm from end to end.  Apologies, I can never remember which is the heel and which is the toe.  I think it's toe to toe, but no doubt someone will explain...

 

 

 

 

 

[trisonic]

Personally, Gordon, I'm glad that you get beautiful trackwork right and terminology wrong than the other way around............and it is a beautiful model. That's how you get flowing trackwork.

 

Good work, Pete.

[gordon s]

Thanks Pete.  I'm not trying to convince anyone to build their own as that's not the purpose of this thread, but was hoping it would clarify the length needed for a crossover in a reasonable radius.  

 

Because they are on a curve, one is a lower radius than the other, but it should give the guys some idea of the space needed.  A Peco large radius turnout (1.092mm) is 223mm, so roughly half the length...

[Jeff Smith]

The SMP one looks better to me, the Marcway one looks like narrow gauge

Agreed.....

Marcway = £25.50

SMP kit = £7.50

No contest........

[Kenton]

 

Because they are on a curve, one is a lower radius than the other, but it should give the guys some idea of the space needed.  A Peco large radius turnout (1.092mm) is 223mm, so roughly half the length...

But correct me if wrong - you have opted to build your own in OO-SF and not OO.

 

To me one of the most important things about this topic is that we are not catering for those who would build their own track anyway - often because they have the space and want finer scaled track. We are "selling" to that undefined market who want track better looking than Peco but are likely to have the same space constraints. From that perspective we should accept that the finer gauges have already left. To me that means any new RTL needs to cover the R2 and R3 as equivalent and that is both not just one of them. Surely the key market is to capture the new starter and to provide them with the easy choice Peco or alternative with good looks and better reliability. If the modeller is forced to mix and match they will almost certainly go with Peco - a proven reliable product even if it might look a bit odd. Many have been using that product for years - change is painful.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I feel that's pushing it at the bottom limit. The obvious difficulty is with parallel tracks. Curves need to be 24" minimum (and often larger dependent on vehicle length) if track centres spacing is to scale for the 11' minimum of running lines. That's where the current flexible track system effectively starts from. Logically a 'better yet' system would be no less demanding.

[gordon s]

I said out the outset Kenton, that wasn't the reason for posting the pic. Post 1142 mentions 'a yard and a half' for a crossover. I just wanted to show it's around 800mm not 1500mm.

 

As Martin has said, much smaller radii will result in the narrow gauge look and not what people will accept. I suspect the bare minimum radius in UK sleeper spacing will have to be at least 36".

[Jeff Smith]

Just watched the SmartSwitch video on the Peco website - quite impressive and states that the over-centre spring does not need to be removed.....quite impressive! PLS-100 starter kit with 4 servos, control board, switches, programming board and all mounting hardware, £65.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Just watched the SmartSwitch video on the Peco website - quite impressive and states that the over-centre spring does not need to be removed.....

 

....but it also means you can now remove the spring and its housing as it's no longer needed with the SmartSwitch.

 

 

.

[Kenton]

 

I said out the outset Kenton, that wasn't the reason for posting the pic.

I did pick up on that and it was the much increased length that I was taking issue with.

 

I just don't think that RTL that has the enforced dimension of OO-SF has a cats chance in hell of being a commercial success. Most who are adopters will kit build as you have shown admirably.

 

If we are really OO modellers than we are looking for something to replace Peco. I've said before to do so will have to be inclusive of ALL OO modellers not those very small minority who see the appearance of Pecos' best efforts as being an issue.

 

If we are looking at RTL OO-SF track then the title needs to change and the few responders to the poll perhaps rethink and consider what that actually means. I think that then just falls into the minority groups of P4 and EM - all well and good for them but not for those who start out with their train sets in OO.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Kenton

[martin_wynne]

I think it's toe to toe, but no doubt someone will explain...

 

Hi Gordon,

 

Yes, toe-to-toe. Think of a turnout as the side view of a human foot, not a plan view.

 

From: http://www.doctorsecrets.com/

 

Martin.

['CHARD]

That needs waxing.

[gordon s]

Thanks MW.  It was the side view that I had forgotten..

 

00-SF is a red herring for my posting Kenton.  I was simply trying to be helpful in giving an approximation of the length of a crossover.  It was a length issue nothing more.  

 

I'm almost wishing I hadn't posted the pic….:-)

Edited January 20, 2014 by gordon s

[martin_wynne]

The SMP one looks better to me, the Marcway one looks like narrow gauge

 

I can't be sure from the pic, but the Marcway one appears to have been built using 3.3mm wide sleepering strip, instead of 4mm wide timbering strip. Hence the light narrow-gauge look. Can anyone confirm?

 

The price comparison is a little unfair -- one is supplied ready to use, the other is a kit which is supplied with plain rail to be filed and shaped. More a pack of materials than a kit.

 

Martin.