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

[The Stationmaster]

I don't recall the Gem crossing, but would it have looked dis-similar to the real thing?

 

Cast-crossing.jpg

 

Picture taken from this website http://www.railway-technical.com/track.shtml

 

Phil

 

I don't remember it as looking much like that (not that the real thing looked like that back then( - which has set me wondering if I still have it somewhere in my stash of 'aged track'?

[hayfield]

I don't recall the Gem crossing, but would it have looked dis-similar to the real thing?

 

Cast-crossing.jpg

 

Picture taken from this website http://www.railway-technical.com/track.shtml

 

Phil

 

 

Phil

 

The crossing looked nothing like that, I do have one hanging about somewhere but not to hand. Its much the same as the crossings in the Lima crossings in a few replies back but instead being a mixture of plastic moulding and rail, it was just a metal casting. 

 

Like the Lima track work in the photo, it was let down on the looks front as the common crossing bares no resemblance to the UK design of common crossing, where there is a clear gap between the Vee and the wing rails, where the sleepers and chairs are visible. On the plus side for 00 gauge there is no wheel drop through the crossing.

[Pacific231G]

Following Joseph's work I've been doing some experiments with a couple of my Jouef OCEM coaches with their normal Kadee couplers removed to enable them to be propelled by their buffers. Being H0 these are about the same length as a Mk 1 BR coach. 

I compared a simple crossover made up of a pair of Peco medium radius points (nominal 3 ft radius) with one from two SMP 3 ft radius points and found as I'd expected that in both cases the displacement of the coach ends was very excessive with the buffer heads - which on these are quite wide- well separated so that propelling with screw link couplers would have led to immediate buffer locking.

I then tried the same two pair of coaches with a crossover made up from Peco long radius points - nominally five foot radius but with the same 12 degree final angle as the other Streamline points. The displacement was somewhat less, but the buffers were only just in contact making buffer locking a distinct possibility even though a five foot radius in 1:87 scale is getting close to the normal 150m minimum radius for sidings set out by the RSSB. Given that any double track throat is bound to include a couple of crossovers this result is a bit disappointing and I think most of us would be hard pressed to find enough length to use crossovers this long.

 

I'm now wondering what sort of flow you'd get through a crossover about the same length but with a shallower crossing angle. Since I use Kadee couplers I could of course propel a train of coaches across a fairly tight crossover but getting it to look realistic is another matter unless I use a curved throat made up from simple points but with no reverse angles.

[Joseph_Pestell]

From the viewpoint of what a train looks like while going through a crossover, I am convinced that crossing angle is far more important than the radius of the pointwork.

 

A no6 point has a 9.5 degree angle which is still quite obtuse in this context, particularly with passenger stock and larger locos, but way better than the 12 degrees of Peco. Snag is that going to no8 with a much better 7 degree angle makes for much longer pointwork and most of us have space constraints.

 

That is why I am keen to see if I can work some sort of a fix which keeps the no6 angle but with longer switches as an option.

 

I would suppose that on most double-track layouts there would be perhaps five pieces of pointwork that are key to the dimensions of the layout. The extra space involved in going to no8 pointwork therefore is approx 5 x 75mm = 375mm. Given a fixed space for a layout, is it worth taking 375mm off the length of something else (platforms, sidings) for the better pointwork? Or does one just have to design a completely different sort of layout? In some cases, the modular Lima Nova type approach would allow more complex formations of pointwork (e.g. scissors crossovers with slip incorporated) which could save the length lost elsewhere.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Let's throw a big pebble into the pond.

 

Could this be a special commission project for a major retailer? An easy product for mail order (except for long lengths of flexi) and a great opportunity to get many modellers onto the sales database.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I have noticed that OPs of some threads change the header title as their project progresses.

 

I would like to do that with this thread (to alert people to the fact that there are some drawings now) but don't know how.

[ThaneofFife]

 

 

What I have found is that even if you use long radius Streamline points for a crossover you still get an excessive displacement at the ends of full length coaches. Would a crossover the same length or even shorter but with a more prototypical geometry avoid that?

The closest I have ever come to getting a near prototypical crossover coach movement (on straight track) from out of the packet points is with the US style 83 line No.8 turnouts (dont ask, it was an experiment) but the coach displacement you mention is just about passable with a MK3 set.  Not sure what the Line83 track centres are as standard using two turnouts to form a typical facing or trailing crossover but the no.8 was the minimum I was using at the time and it provided for a very satisfactory prototypical coaching stock movement as it travelled through the formation.  end to end that formation measured roughly 650mm.  a lot of space taken up.

 

I do wonder if you took 16.5mm 00 track and dropped the track centres to 45mm if you could achieve prototypical coach movements with same as or shorter crossovers (I have my doubts although matters can be improved with current Peco RTR points by trimming down the section of straight between the two points) - at the very least you would need close couplings and maybe even couplings mounted on the coach bodies rather than the bogies to keep the coaches in line better and reduce the throw.  I do look at fairly short "swan necked" flowing trailing and facing crossovers on the network today where you see locos and coaches traverse and think how do the coaches remain in line over such a short looking junction when I cant achieve that on my layout at home?  I think the shortest crossover for the Mk1 coach to traverse is roughly 2.5 to 3 full coach lengths from a point at the start of the first turnouts toe to a point at the toe end of the last point.  that takes up a lot of space in 00.  Its one of the more annoying compromises in my book.

Edited December 10, 2013 by ThaneofFife

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The closest I have ever come to getting a near prototypical crossover coach movement (on straight track) from out of the packet points is with the US style 83 line No.8 turnouts (dont ask, it was an experiment) but the coach displacement you mention is just about passable with a MK3 set...

 

I do wonder if you took 16.5mm 00 track and dropped the track centres to 45mm if you could achieve prototypical coach movements with same as or shorter crossovers...

 This goes beyond the track. Real bogies are not on a fixed location pivot, the carriage body centreline can be displaced either side of the effective pivot point of the bogie. Someone working in EM decades ago (name eludes me) did demonstrate this with very nice side control springing. It's a lot of work though... 

[Joseph_Pestell]

I have been thinking more in terms of Code 83FB than Code 75FB. But perhaps it would be more sensible to use Code 75FB which would be more compatible for those who want to also use Code 75BH (which there should be on most layouts even if only for sidings).

[Jeff Smith]

Surely coupler location will have an effect on how a coupled pair of coaches goes through reverse curves? Buffer beam or bogie mounted?

[ThaneofFife]

Surely coupler location will have an effect on how a coupled pair of coaches goes through reverse curves? Buffer beam or bogie mounted?

Must do Jeff.  Ive no concept of the pivot point on real coaches being on a sliding spring arrangement - thats certainly a new one on me and in any event just not practical to model hence why I said "I have my doubts" about same or shorter crossovers not improving the coach throw out.

 

Maybe it also helps more with the slop found in 00 track and wheesl because buffer beam mounted couplers would be pulling the adjacent coach into line with itself using the slack in the wheelsets/rail interface so I would say it must improve the alignment albeit slightly.

Edited December 10, 2013 by ThaneofFife

[martin_wynne]

I have been thinking more in terms of Code 83FB than Code 75FB. But perhaps it would be more sensible to use Code 75FB which would be more compatible for those who want to also use Code 75BH (which there should be on most layouts even if only for sidings).

 

Can you clarify what this topic is about?

 

If it's about treating track as a model, then the starting point is the prototype. You don't try to shorten a locomotive to make it fit your layout, so why think of doing that with the track?

 

The prototype has a full range of short switches and crossings for use in cramped locations. But it doesn't shunt bogie coaches into a small country goods yard. The usual minimum for a running-line crossover would be B-8, and then only at very low speed. 

 

Code75 FB rail in 4mm/ft scale is only suitable for light rail use -- i.e. narrow-gauge and industrials. Nearly all UK prototype FB rail is 6.1/4" high -- which means Code 82 in 4mm scale. Code 83 rail is actually H0 scale equivalent of American rail, although it would be near enough Code 82 in practice. Code 75 FB rail isn't, and looks too small in 4mm scale.

 

If this topic is not about treating track as a model, but just creating another range of toy track geometry with different timbering from Peco, it hardly seems worth the bother. I can't see many modellers wanting to pay a premium for that, or a manufacturer wanting to invest in it.

 

Martin.

[ThaneofFife]

Actually I take that back about the pivoting (I know the threads diverging a bit here, but) I remember seeing the back of an express batting through Bletchley on one of my railway DVDs think it might have been electric traction archive and the rear coach was a BG and as it went over a facing crossover that wasnt in the best of conditions the coach body swayed fairly violently (I suspect a possible effect of a last coach on a train as there is no load on the back end with another coach or coaches)  - by that I mean proper side to side motion whilst the bogie just stayed true. 

 

I really cant see the benefit in springing bogie pivots on 00 coaches though as the dimensionally gains must surely be minute as to virtually be non-existent.  You would gain 1mm tops either side and if that cant be countered with better couplings then I would be very surprised.  If you want turnouts with a realistic end throw then the only way to achieve that would be with longer turnouts than the Peco large radius.  That means more space required......

Edited December 10, 2013 by ThaneofFife

[Nick Holliday]

I know it is early days, and that the drawings are only sketches, but it would make sense to get them looking right at this stage.  My problem is with the wing rails at the crossing on the simple turnouts.  As this drawing shows, courtesy of Martin Wynne from a thread in 2009, the nose of the crossing should be approximately in the centre of the crossing timber, to get the full support of the special chair, and the wing rail should extend past the next chair, but no further, unless the crossing angle is very shallow, or there is another reason to have some form of check rail extending past the crossing.

At the same time, generally, the opposite check rails would also stop on the same crossing timber, lining across nicely.

 

[gordon s]

Even as a builder of my own track, I'm finding this thread fascinating.  I believe one of the reasons these threads never move forward is the sheer number of variations that are generated by the number of posters.  

 

Generally, most have a view of what they want and that gives the impression to potential manufacturers that sales won't materialise because the available market is getting smaller by the minute as it becomes more fragmented.  We all know that modelling, particularly in 00 gauge is always going to be a compromise, so going into the nth degree of detail surely reinforces the entrenched view that no one will move forward with the ambiguity that is creating.

 

Going back to the opening post shouldn't you be just looking at the top level requirement?   I would expect that even if such a product is produced, modellers will either have to accept the new product and compromise on one of their demands or make their own track.  Going into a vast range of specs and details simply reinforces the view that if the modellers cannot tell us what they want us to produce, we'll not bother as the returns won't be there.

 

As a manufacturer there are limitations in what can be produced in cost effective production machines and again some compromise is inevitable.  The level of compromise cannot be established until you have some basic generic specs and volumes.  It's only when you get past first base and get interest from a manufacturer can the detail be discussed with their design, tooling and moulding specialists.

 

Feel free to disagree with my viewpoint, but I believe you would be better to get back to the top level requirement and get that established first.  One thing is sure, some if not all will have to be prepared to accept a compromise somewhere along the line.  It may be a better compromise than the likes of Peco, but will still be a compromise and not the Holy Grail some may be expecting.

Edited December 10, 2013 by gordon s

[Clive Mortimore]

Even as a builder of my own track, I'm finding this thread fascinating.  I believe one of the reasons these threads never move forward is the sheer number of variations that are generated by the number of posters.  Generally, most have a view of what they want and that gives the impression to potential manufacturers that sales won't materialise because the available market is getting smaller by the minute as it becomes more fragmented.  We all know that modelling, particularly in 00 gauge is always going to be a compromise, so going into the nth degree of detail surely reinforces the entrenched view that no one will move forward with the ambiguity that is creating.

 

Going back to the opening post shouldn't you be just looking at the top level requirement?   I would expect that even if such a product is produced, modellers will either have to accept the new product and compromise on one of their demands or make their own track.  Going into a vast range of specs and details simply reinforces the view that if the modellers cannot tell us what they want us to produce, we'll not bother as the returns won't be there.

 

As a manufacturer there are limitations in what can be produced in cost effective production machines and again some compromise is inevitable.  The level of compromise cannot be established until you have some basic generic specs and volumes.  It's only when you get past first base and get interest from a manufacturer can the detail be discussed with their design, tooling and moulding specialists.

 

Feel free to disagree with my viewpoint, but I believe you would be better to get back to the top level requirement and get that established first.  One thing is sure, some if not all will have to be prepared to accept a compromise somewhere along the line.  It may be a better compromise than the likes of Peco, but will still be a compromise and not the Holy Grail some are expecting.

One of the problems with confusing potential manufacturers with multiple specs comes from those who build there own track and constantly tell those who don't they are doing it wrong in threads like these.

 

Martin Wynne commented "just creating another range of toy track geometry with different timbering from Peco," So what, if it works as well as Peco but looks better then we are half way there.

 

I would like to see a range of various prototype dimensioned points. There are too many variations on the real thing to cover the needs of every modeller so a compromise will have to be made.

 

 

Do all the builders of hand built track make their own figures? I don't think they do, so please stop telling those who do not build their own track want they want. I should start a campaign "Can't be real modellers if they use Dapol figures".

[cromptonnut]

Do all the builders of hand built track make their own figures? I don't think they do, so please stop telling those who do not build their own track want they want. I should start a campaign "Can't be real modellers if they use Dapol figures".

 

or run their steam locos off of 12v DC, or grow their own trees from sea moss seeds, grind their own ballast from rocks, run the exact timetable of a particular day with the exact stock used down to individual wagon numbers, etc etc etc.

 

I'm sure even the most spectacular of model railway layouts use some sort of commercial product somewhere in their construction even if it's buying "baseboard kits".

 

Why do they do it?

 

Because a commerical product that suits the bill saves time, effort and occasionally money.

 

It's all about compromise.  We all define our own standards of compromise, and whilst I can accept and understand the need to encourage others to improve their skills - I've been on both the giving and receivng end of such advice, whether asked for or not - we don't have the right to criticise others for not meeting "our standards".

 

Try working in O gauge and using Peco track instead of building your own... that's even more of a "untouchable" to some people than it seems to be in OO.

[gordon s]

Hey guys, I'm on your side and would be very happy to see an improved product on the market.  I deliberately haven't suggested any parameters for a basic range of pointwork as I do build my own and wouldn't want to be accused of muddying the water.

 

All I'm suggesting is that the thread is moving further and further away from the original intention which was to try and come up with some basic requirements.  The more you discuss the detail, the more difficult it may become to achieve the original objective, which I guess is to clarify what the market would buy instead of the currently available offerings.

 

There is a huge difference between the 'must have's' in a spec and the 'would be nice to have' options.  Once you've established the must haves, then the rest will follow should a manufacturer pick up on the requirement.

[Godders]

Toy track geometry.

Is that really an appropriate comment directed at those of us who would just like a more realistic track option without resorting to building our own? A skill that I don't possess or want to learn, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Martin, that comes across as really pompous, as do some of your earlier posts. If you're above all this, then why are you even reading this thread?

I think Martin is right in stating the obvious. It is toy track geometry and extremely complex, try reverse engineering it. If you want it to look like the prototype then it has to be scaled from the prototype. Now, if that's what you are saying then say exactly what you want commercially available but be prepared to accept a limited range. Also be prepared to accept restricted minimum radii and or running speeds. If it's the cosmetic looks that you want then some of the examples I've seen of modified Peco make it difficult to detect when camouflaged in ballast, rust coloured paint and other detail changes such as the horrific tie bar. 

[cromptonnut]

All I'm suggesting is that the thread is moving further and further away from the original intention which was to try and come up with some basic requirements.  

 

I would suggest that something as simple as correctly spaced, and width, sleepers (ie a new plastic base), for the UK market with the existing range of Peco streamline trackwork would go a very long way towards achieving what I understand to be the aim of the thread.

[The Stationmaster]

Even as a builder of my own track, I'm finding this thread fascinating.  I believe one of the reasons these threads never move forward is the sheer number of variations that are generated by the number of posters.  Generally, most have a view of what they want and that gives the impression to potential manufacturers that sales won't materialise because the available market is getting smaller by the minute as it becomes more fragmented.  We all know that modelling, particularly in 00 gauge is always going to be a compromise, so going into the nth degree of detail surely reinforces the entrenched view that no one will move forward with the ambiguity that is creating.

 

Going back to the opening post shouldn't you be just looking at the top level requirement?   I would expect that even if such a product is produced, modellers will either have to accept the new product and compromise on one of their demands or make their own track.  Going into a vast range of specs and details simply reinforces the view that if the modellers cannot tell us what they want us to produce, we'll not bother as the returns won't be there.

 

As a manufacturer there are limitations in what can be produced in cost effective production machines and again some compromise is inevitable.  The level of compromise cannot be established until you have some basic generic specs and volumes.  It's only when you get past first base and get interest from a manufacturer can the detail be discussed with their design, tooling and moulding specialists.

 

Feel free to disagree with my viewpoint, but I believe you would be better to get back to the top level requirement and get that established first.  One thing is sure, some if not all will have to be prepared to accept a compromise somewhere along the line.  It may be a better compromise than the likes of Peco, but will still be a compromise and not the Holy Grail some may be expecting.

 

I think you are absolutely right Gordon - hence my earlier point about what basic formations were likely to be required, before any thought about crossing angles and switch lengths come into play.  And I think too that before it goes much beyond those basics it comes up against a major obstacle which is the way people visualise track - and for many modellers that visualisation stems largely from Peco geometry rather than from prototype knowledge although i suspect that Templot has done something to change that viisualisation for some people (Martin could perhaps tell us how many?).

 

But this then goes a stage further and that is where the rub comes.  Some modellers, probably quite a lot of the less experienced ones or with lesser knowledge of the prototype, look at cramming a lot into a relatively small space, often because they 'need' lots of trains and rolling stock.  The virtue of less is more is not always appreciated and they tend to look at and be led by plans which suggest how simple it is to cram stuff in (the magazines don't sometimes help here) and that means short pointwork of every sort and greater crossing angles.  The rub really hits home when those people - in reality a large majority of railway modellers I reckon, are faced with longer pointwork which eats unexpected amounts of space; Jeff took us through exactly that scenario as he developed Kirby Luneside, but he had enough space to get away with it, many don't have that luxury.

 

So readjusting thinking and visualisation can be a problem, and a hurdle to sales of even the miniaturisation  of the tighter BR standards for pointwork.  In my mind step No.1 should be deciding how to cope with that as part of developing a standard for a new 4mm scale, 16.5mm gauge model railway track - and 'coping with it' will influence the adopted geometry because unless that is done it will never sell.  I know what I want for my 'ideal' layout and I am fortunate in being able to visualise fairly well what will fit into a given space (I reckon that as I could do it successfuly in 12":1ft scale it should be feasible in 4mm:1ft scale, it usually has been) but that is me - a new range of track needs geometry, plan books, and a change in thinking if it is to succeed, otherwise it would be someone's very expensive failure.

 

Edit to correct typo

Edited December 11, 2013 by The Stationmaster

[martin_wynne]

I know it is early days, and that the drawings are only sketches, but it would make sense to get them looking right at this stage.  My problem is with the wing rails at the crossing on the simple turnouts.  As this drawing shows, courtesy of Martin Wynne from a thread in 2009, the nose of the crossing should be approximately in the centre of the crossing timber, to get the full support of the special chair, and the wing rail should extend past the next chair, but no further, unless the crossing angle is very shallow, or there is another reason to have some form of check rail extending past the crossing.

 

 

 

I should quickly point out that the diagram above is not prototypical. It shows how to adjust the timbering in Templot to look acceptable if you want to use sharp-nose vees. They are not prototypical and look awful, but are necessary if you want to run wheels which are too narrow for the track standard.

 

The prototype actually looks like this, with a blunt nose on the vee (3/4" wide for BH, 5/8" wide for FB) supported on the timber, and the gauge intersection in fresh air between the timbers:

 

 

which looks a lot better to anyone familiar with track.

 

A full design for 00 finescale requires consideration of all these factors. The 00-SF standard works fine with blunt nose vees, with both RP25/110 wheels and with RP25/88 wheels. The 00-BF standard does not, but is more forgiving of quality-control issues with RTR wheels.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited December 10, 2013 by martin_wynne

[Jeff Smith]

Getting back to basics, I dug out some track I've had for a while to compare dimensions. Bearing in mind that the OO scale/gauge ratio is incorrect in the first place and the object of the exercise (and the discussion on this thread) is to make OO track look acceptable.

 

Top - PECO code 75FB we all know is 1/87th HO. As such it is in proportion, ie the gauge/sleeper spacing length and size are correctly proportioned to each other for HO. When ballasted etc it looks good until you put a 1/76th vehicle on it. The sleepers scale to 7'6"x9" at 1'9" spacing in 1/76th.

 

Centre - C&L code 75BH P4. The sleepers scale to 8'6"x10" at 2'6" spacing. The overall appearance is good as it is in proportion for 1/76th scale.

 

Bottom - SMP code 75BH OO. The sleepers scale to 8'x10" at 2'3" spacing.

 

SMP has been clever in keeping the sleeper length outside the rail in proportion, so because of the shorter than scale sleepers the under-gauge appearance is minimised so the track looks pretty good IMHO, (C&L may have done the same but as I don't have a sample to hand I can't comment).

 

So if I was recommending an overall appearance for a RTR OO track/point manufacturer to use it would be the SMP dimensions as being a reasonable compromise and minimising the under-gauge appearance.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I would see it as a series of wants.

 

Prime requirement: robust and reliable in service, literally fit and forget. That's where Peco scores over all alternatives for folks like me who want above all else to operate model trains. that must not be sacrificed.

 

Looking better than what is presently available: better proportioned timbering first priority. The well established compromises for this developed for OO on soldered construction track over many decades are good enough.

 

Shallower crossing angle would be nice to have.

 

One piece switch rails rather than loose heel, nice but not essential; user can opt to solder up the joint.

 

Possibly cement on check rails, user option to supply and fit own rail parts (they are going to be painted 'rusty filth' so are better in dark plastic than metal.

 

Robust tie bar, easily removed over centre spring mech, much as at present.

 

Whatever rail standard the maker chooses, code 75 FB strikes me as a well established compromise, and FB has seen large scale use since the 1930s.

[Pacific231G]

Surely coupler location will have an effect on how a coupled pair of coaches goes through reverse curves? Buffer beam or bogie mounted?

For my experiments- which in this case were about appearance more than running-  I removed one of the couplers and propelled the coaches so that I could see whether the buffers were touching or were completely separating laterally . What I found was that the displacement was much the same with SMP nominal 3ft radius points as with Peco medium. The crossovers were about the same length for both types of point as was the crossing angle. What did surprise me was that the displacement with Peco large radius points was only slightly better. What I now want to investigate is whether this is simply a function of the overall length of the crossover from toe to toe or whether Peco's geometry loses some of the benefit of the extra length and larger radius in order to keep the same 12 degree divergence angle. Unfortunately I don't have any larger radius SMP points to test this with so will have to work off full scale paper plans. 

 

 

ThaneofFife your experiment with code 83 no 8s is interesting - I never used anything larger than no 6 (Shinohara and home built) when I modelled N. American prototypes many years ago but I only had one passenger coach - it was a shortline- so corridor connections going wildly out of line wasn't an issue and of course with body mounted Kadees representing AAR couplers buffer locking was never a problem.

 

I'm beginning to think that one of the reasons why CJF's Minories has been so enduringly popular is that only one of the six possible routes through the throat involves a back to back S. I've just been looking at a clip I took of the MRC's  EM version that I think used a nominal minimum radius of three feet and the displacement problem is just as apparent through that route. 

Edited December 10, 2013 by Pacific231G