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

[martin_wynne]

There isn't a "mess".

 

It is very sensible for RTR models to use an underscale track gauge, so that RTR wheel profiles and running gear can be fitted within a scale-width model, and sharp curves be used.

 

No-one suggests that 4ft-1.5in gauge RTR rolling-stock is a mess -- nowadays most of it is hailed as very fine models. So why would 4mm/ft scale 4ft-1.5in gauge track for it to run on be a mess? It looks a mess only if you run it on 3.5mm/ft scale track.

 

Proper 00 track to the BRMSB standard looks just fine, providing you remember that it is a model of 4ft-1.5in gauge track, not 4ft-8.5in.

 

There isn't a law that we have to model a 4ft-8.5in gauge railway. By buying 00 RTR models we are choosing 4ft-1.5in gauge instead. Just build the track to match.

 

Martin.

[trisonic]

00 Gauge looks very good on Gordon’s "Eastwood Town” (and many others). He is not using separate chairs either.

 

OK I know it is to 00-SF, but with careful planning of the track layout to some simple rules the results can look super.

 

PECO are advertising heavily over here for their “US” Code 83 track. It is viewed as a “Premium" track, that might be self-justification because it is expensive compared to ME - where they do “score” is with diversity of switches over ME. If they do become the “go to” track in the USA the returns for them will be large compared to the UK.

 

Best, Pete.

Edited August 29, 2014 by trisonic

[Pacific231G]

I thought it worth looking at the original BRMSB standard and found this table from 1947. It's slightly odd as the sleeper dimensions are actually the same  (32x3.5mm) for "Scale HO" and "Standard OO" but longer and wider (36x4mm) for "Scale OO with a gauge of 18mm. There are recommendations for sleeper spacing for HO and scale OO (for main lines 9 & 10 mm respectively)  but none for Standard OO. Standard OO rail was to be 2.5mm high (effectively code 100) but for the other two scales it was to be 2mm (code 80)

So, if Peco or anyone else were being asked to produce 00 track to BRMSB standards what would in fact be asked for; surely not H0 width sleepers and code 100 rail?  It was during the following year 1948 that the BRMSB decided to rechristen scale OO as EM. I don't know whether they revised the OO standards again after that.

 

 

I also notice that the much complained about excessive distance between double tracks that a crossover made from  Peco and other proprietary pointwork gives is in line with the BRMSB standard for "Standard OO".

In the 1947 MRN I also found a piece that made a good argument for the BRMSB's decision to adopt a gauge for OO  that scaled at 4ft 6ins rather than 4ft 8.5ins by narrowing the scale 18.87 (or 19mm) gauge to 18mm. This they decided  would be sufficient for practical modelling to allow for clearances and undescale curves .

Edited September 3, 2014 by Pacific231G

[gordon s]

Hi Joseph, a year has gone by and I wondered if this project is still ongoing or whether it has been dropped completely.  

 

Despite building my own track, I am interested in what were the reactions from potential manufactures and whether or not the fragmented market is always going to prevent anyone ever challenging the dominant position Peco hold in this particular sector of the market.

 

Can you give us an update on your thoughts in this project?

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hi Gordon,

 

I have not been able to give this anything like the time that I would like.  The "day job" has been far more demanding than I expected.

 

My initial attempts to find a UK manufacturer with the necessary equipment/skills for this project have been fairly unfruitful so far. It's not that they don't exist but all are running pretty much at capacity and the history of UK manufacturing over the last 30 years seems to make business owners quite reluctant to invest time and facilities into new projects. I will have another go early in the New Year, work permitting, but it seems quite likely that I may have to go to an existing HO gauge manufacturer and get them to adapt to a new OO sleeperbase. The down side of that is that it would be FB whereas there seems to be a definite preference for BH.

[Phatbob]

Joseph,

Given that FB is all that's available RTP, FB rail pointwork with a more 1:76 scale sleepering will get my purchase over FB rail poinwork with 1:87 scale sleepering and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.  Something more like Tillig points that matches SMP flexible track will do nicely thank you.
:-)
Regards,
Bob.

[hayfield]

Joseph

 

Looking at some old Peco spiked point kits I have, Whilst they still are a bit small the interesting bit is that the sleepers are to 4mm scale 00 gauge both in sleeper size and spacing. Now this in not to advocate kit building but giving you an example that Peco have in the past made 4mm scale 00 points and I guess certainly have the ability to do so in the future. Its now down to consumer demand for a product.

 

The old product being spiked lent its self to flatbottom rail. However in my humble opinion there is room for both flatbottom and bullhead rail flexitrack to suite both those interested in the modern and historic eras.

 

By bringing out a range of bullhead track including turnouts and crossings will create a new market with those who wish to have the correct style of track for their chosen period. Probably less so for flatbottom but I guess it will still sell well

[MikeHunter]

Ok my two penny worth: I've used Peco code 100 for years, do I like its appearance, no. Do I like its performance, yes. I would love Peco to manufacture a finer scale track system than code 75, the biggest issue for me would be better sleeper spacing. I agree that SMP looks much better, if I had the time, the money and the skill, I'd go for it. As to gauge issues, I again model 00 because it's practical and achievable. If the mainstream manufacturers went EM I'd be delighted despite the cost and hassle of changing.

[Jeff Smith]

Apologies to Joseph (the OP) for picking up on this thread again as you may well have no further thoughts of exploring further manufacturing/production opportunities. 

 

However, be that as it may, I wanted to re-introduce this thread as there is currently much discussion on this topic on another current thread that has drifted off-topic and may well be better discussed here.  There is also the bonus of studying the Poll results (although probably no-one has recently added to it) and of re-reading some of the past thoughts.  Also there will be new members that just haven't picked up this thread since the last addition in December last year.

 

Of particular interest in the Poll is the pricing question which suggests that a significant proportion of modellers would pay a bit more to get better (more appropriate) looking points if a RtL range was available.  Also that there is a desire for both BH and FB but that the majority (at least those answering the Poll) model post 1948 so could probably live with decent British looking FB.  The advantage of a manufacturer considering this would be to alleviate the arguments that there is no such thing as universal British BH track so to leave that to the likes of the existing scale track manufacturers.  As an aside, I cared enough to select the correct C&L GWR chairs for my P4 layout to build my own track and would expect others to do the same or alternatively not to be too worried and just go with whatever RtL BH track there is.....and of course build their own points.....

 

Anyway, getting back to topic I see a market for a British durable OO FB track system similar to the Peco Code 75 range, maybe with better geometry, but certainly with 'appropriate' (TBD) sleeper size, spacing and rail fixing.  I honestly think this would overcome a lot of the 'I'll stick with Peco as it is so reliable even though it is totally inappropriate' arguments.  One other thing, it would have to be, so some degree at least, intermixable with existing Peco track. In other words a British equivalent of the Code 83 range.

[Holgate Junction]

 

There is also the bonus of studying the Poll results (although probably no-one has recently added to it) and of re-reading some of the past thoughts.  Also there will be new members that just haven't picked up this thread since the last addition in December last year.

 

I am one of those new members and I did take the time to read a lot of the previous 50 odd pages before adding to the poll. I still think the discussion is worth having too, but the previous pages probably need précising again to make it manageable for most people to catch up. It took me three or four days to find out where things were heading and by the time I finished I got confused.

 

In summary I think most people agree there needs to be a set of standards we can agree to for a compromise to get ready to lay FB OO track with a more realistic look, but then it gets difficult to specify what they are. Can we start with an agreed sleeper size and spacing perhaps and move on from there?

 

Matthew

[martin_wynne]

Can we start with an agreed sleeper size and spacing perhaps and move on from there?

 

Hi Matthew,

 

Unfortunately even that much is beyond agreement . See for example AndyID's current experiments with 3D printed track bases:

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/97557-not-quite-oo-or-ho/page-12

 

My firm preference is for the traditional BRMSB approach -- a proper 4mm/ft scale model of 4ft-1.5in gauge prototype track. But I know I'm probably in a minority on that.

 

Martin.

[autocoach]

i was just wondering what was happening to this thread. Even though I model Southern in 1947, I would compromise with FB rail just to get better looking sleeper spacing on turnouts. Understand why Peco always shunned the 00 track controversies. I don't care whether it is 3.5 mm scale UK style track or DOGA or whatever.  Learn from Nike and JUST DO IT (shouting over).

[Ravenser]

Hi Matthew,

 

Unfortunately even that much is beyond agreement . See for example AndyID's current experiments with 3D printed track bases:

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/97557-not-quite-oo-or-ho/page-12

 

My firm preference is for the traditional BRMSB approach -- a proper 4mm/ft scale model of 4ft-1.5in gauge prototype track. But I know I'm probably in a minority on that.

 

Martin.

 

Three of those four samples are radically better than current Peco . There is a danger of focussing on division and disagreement rather than consensus-building and letting the best be an enemy of the good.

 

I suspect Autocoach's comments would be echoed by most - Padstow may have been laid in bullhead in 1947 but a good 4mm rendition of wooden sleepered FB  would still be a vast improvement on what is currently available ready-made. It's also worth remembering that FB started to be laid in mainlines from about 1945 , so the Southern would have had some flatbottom rail on its system in 1947, even if it was only in limited area of main running lines between Waterloo and Southampton/Salisbury/Portsmouth

 

FB may not be typical in the steam era , but on a post war layout it's not obviously and blatantly wrong

[Mike Storey]

Hi Matthew,

 

Unfortunately even that much is beyond agreement . See for example AndyID's current experiments with 3D printed track bases:

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/97557-not-quite-oo-or-ho/page-12

 

My firm preference is for the traditional BRMSB approach -- a proper 4mm/ft scale model of 4ft-1.5in gauge prototype track. But I know I'm probably in a minority on that.

 

Martin.

 

This is the closest this thread has been to agreement in its long, long history. If its just between 7ft6 and 7ft9 scale length sleepers (the width seems to be acceptable to all), I think we are nearly there. There will still be an issue with the turnout dimensions obviously, but that becomes a commercial decision about what radii/angles will sell in enough quantities, rather than sleeper size. Did Joseph P get any further with his endeavours I wonder?

[Joseph_Pestell]

Glad to see this thread revived. And I see that there has also been similar comment on a thread that started as a discussion about apparent inaccuracies in the radius measurements of Peco pointwork.

 

My day job continues to take all of my limited energy (and then some!) and just leaves a bit of time to catch up with RMWeb during breaks.

 

I will try (probably in a few weeks time, after harvest) to put forward a suggested design for this new OO track and also a suggested programme of how it could be taken forward. Let's see what that generates including, possibly, a crowd-funding proposal.

[Joseph_Pestell]

This is the closest this thread has been to agreement in its long, long history. If its just between 7ft6 and 7ft9 scale length sleepers (the width seems to be acceptable to all), I think we are nearly there. There will still be an issue with the turnout dimensions obviously, but that becomes a commercial decision about what radii/angles will sell in enough quantities, rather than sleeper size. Did Joseph P get any further with his endeavours I wonder?

 

One thing for which I think that we do have consensus is that it should be angle based: i.e. #6, #8, etc. Even Peco have gone that way now with their Code 83.

[Vistisen]

I have an idea for a new way of holding the sleepers at the correct distance on this new track that I'd like to suggest. With almost all the retail track that I've seen up to now. The sleepers are kept at the correct difference by two thin strips of plastic that runs parallel and just under each rail ( with gaps every few sleepers on flexible track to allow curves). This annoys me, If i had any belief in my own ability to make trackwork, one of the major reason for doing so would be the separation of sleepers from each other. But a thought crossed my mind, I can not imagine that any of our potential customers would not be using ballasted  track. So why not replace these two strips under the rails with one that is half the depth of the sleepers down the middle for the track? It is was slightly wider than the current sections under the rails it could also be using for pinning down track rather than making holes in sleepers. It would also mean that on curves each sleeper could be perpendicular to the track which they often can't be with fixed distances between each sleeper being the same on the inside and outside rail on current retail flex track.

The thin middle strip would be covered by ballast after laying the track and become more invisible than the current strips under each rail

[Colin_McLeod]

Great idea. I like it.

[Ravenser]

I have an idea for a new way of holding the sleepers at the correct distance on this new track that I'd like to suggest. With almost all the retail track that I've seen up to now. The sleepers are kept at the correct difference by two thin strips of plastic that runs parallel and just under each rail ( with gaps every few sleepers on flexible track to allow curves). This annoys me, If i had any belief in my own ability to make trackwork, one of the major reason for doing so would be the separation of sleepers from each other. But a thought crossed my mind, I can not imagine that any of our potential customers would not be using ballasted  track. So why not replace these two strips under the rails with one that is half the depth of the sleepers down the middle for the track? It is was slightly wider than the current sections under the rails it could also be using for pinning down track rather than making holes in sleepers. It would also mean that on curves each sleeper could be perpendicular to the track which they often can't be with fixed distances between each sleeper being the same on the inside and outside rail on current retail flex track.

The thin middle strip would be covered by ballast after laying the track and become more invisible than the current strips under each rail

 

It depends how thick you make the sleepers. With Peco, they are about 3 mm deep, so this would work. But some of the specialist finescale flexible track like SMP uses sleepers only about 1mm thick

[Jeff Smith]

So you glue the sleepers and when set cut away the connecting pieces.

[Jeff Smith]

Personally I think this is a wonderful and innovative idea.

[autocoach]

One thing for which I think that we do have consensus is that it should be angle based: i.e. #6, #8, etc. Even Peco have gone that way now with their Code 83.

Peco code 83 is directly aimed at the North American market where the angle based turnout is typical of North American railroad engineering practice.  Also if you want to sell to North Americans, you must use the language/terms they are familiar with. Peco US prototype HO track sells well in the US representing post 1950's US mainline track practices. My local hobby shop (Train Store to the UK) sells as much Peco code 83 as the other US code 83 brands The switch/turnout frog angles are low compared to the prototype as with all brands but are acceptable for modelling spaces. 

 

One thing that is not seen in the US is the radius designation for turnouts/switches whether in metric or inches. Only Atlas snap track is sold with 18 or 22 inch designations. 

[autocoach]

I have an idea for a new way of holding the sleepers at the correct distance on this new track that I'd like to suggest. With almost all the retail track that I've seen up to now. The sleepers are kept at the correct difference by two thin strips of plastic that runs parallel and just under each rail ( with gaps every few sleepers on flexible track to allow curves). This annoys me, If i had any belief in my own ability to make trackwork, one of the major reason for doing so would be the separation of sleepers from each other. But a thought crossed my mind, I can not imagine that any of our potential customers would not be using ballasted  track. So why not replace these two strips under the rails with one that is half the depth of the sleepers down the middle for the track? It is was slightly wider than the current sections under the rails it could also be using for pinning down track rather than making holes in sleepers. It would also mean that on curves each sleeper could be perpendicular to the track which they often can't be with fixed distances between each sleeper being the same on the inside and outside rail on current retail flex track.

The thin middle strip would be covered by ballast after laying the track and become more invisible than the current strips under each rail

You would be surprised at how many people don't get around to the messy task of ballasting. On both sides of the the Atlantic. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

You would be surprised at how many people don't get around to the messy task of ballasting. On both sides of the the Atlantic. 

 

You may well be right about that. But with this design, they might make the effort.

 

Or one could envisage a foam based ballast that was installed after laying the track.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Peco code 83 is directly aimed at the North American market where the angle based turnout is typical of North American railroad engineering practice.  Also if you want to sell to North Americans, you must use the language/terms they are familiar with. Peco US prototype HO track sells well in the US representing post 1950's US mainline track practices. My local hobby shop (Train Store to the UK) sells as much Peco code 83 as the other US code 83 brands The switch/turnout frog angles are low compared to the prototype as with all brands but are acceptable for modelling spaces. 

 

One thing that is not seen in the US is the radius designation for turnouts/switches whether in metric or inches. Only Atlas snap track is sold with 18 or 22 inch designations. 

 

I accept that Peco did it because they had to for the US market. But that does not invalidate the concept as angle-based turnouts correspond to UK and European practice as well.