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

[ThaneofFife]

that SMP track a few posts back just about looks OK to me.  No comparison to the P4 but the 00 hides its under gauging well i think.

 

they do seem to have got the sleepers sizes bob on to fool the eye and compliment the 16.5mm gauge as best as possible without it looking like narrow gauge which is often the danger when fiddling about trying to make 00 track look better......id like to see a 00 loco on that track at track level to see if the illusion continues.........anyone?

[martin_wynne]

Here is a quick sequence to create a curviform double-junction in Templot. A curviform double junction is one where the curves continue through the V-crossings and the radii in the exits differ. In this case roughly 6ft and 3ft radii (see below for the actual figures).

 

(The diamond-crossing in such a double-junction is called an irregular diamond, because the radii in the two roads differ, and all the angles differ.)

 

Starting with a B-7 turnout in 00-SF curved onto 2000mm (79") radius (outer radius), the first 2 clicks are:

 

real > V-crossing options > curviform V-crossing menu item.

 

tools > make ladder crossover > make curviform ladder menu item.

 

which results in this:

 

 

As you can see in the information panel, the inner radius across the diamond is 846mm (33").

 

 

The next 2 clicks are:

 

tools > make branch track menu item.

 

tools > make double-track TS menu item.

 

which results in this:

 

 

 

Now click the LENGTH F4 button at the top of the screen (or press the F4 key), and use the mouse to lengthen the inner curve back towards the junction, like this:

 

 

 

Now click on the first part of the diamond-crossing, and click make the control on the menu which appears on the left. Then click the LENGTH F4 button again and use the mouse to lengthen the main road on that template back to the left, like this:

 

 

That's enough for one post, more in the next one.

 

Martin.

[Mythocentric]

Isn't the point of all this to produce a more realistic system of turnouts which not only competes with but improves on Peco's offering? Peco could have done this themselves a long time ago but haven't because a comparatively small market like the the UK gives them an effective monopoly! Take a look at the difference between the 'new' Code 100 turnouts with the improved appearance around the tiebar compared to the horrendous spring housing on the same Code 75 product. A small but effective difference which has been dealt with elsewhere on RMWeb. It's a small step but it does show that to some degree that a better, more realistic track system for the general modeller could be produced but they won't because as far as the UK is concerned the market is 'locked' with an attitude of "they'll use it because this is all they've got!".

That's why I fully support Joseph with this thread. With respect to Martin and the other guys who hand build they're own trackwork for whom I have nothing but admiration, sorry guys but I'm not in that camp for the simple reason that I just don't have the time! I'm currently engaged on what will probably be my last layout and so far it's taken me over two years to plan it and scratchbuild the main buildings for it. If I do get there I'd love to see my stock running on something better than Peco HO trackwork.

 

Just one other point. There appears to be a sub theme of why do we need bull-head rail, 3-way points, etc because we model diesels, modern era, etc from some posters! OK that's fine and more power to your elbow's chaps but don't lose sight of the fact that by far the largest majority of modellers are steam-era. You just cannot afford to ignore them in favour of your own particular interest because that will alienate the biggest share of your market! The baseline is a track system which is an imorovement on Peco (not particularly hard to do!) which is available to the majority. So lets all pull together and see if we can't change a few minds!

 

Regards

 

Bill

Edited December 11, 2013 by Mythocentric

[martin_wynne]

that SMP track a few posts back just about looks OK to me.

 

SMP Scaleway in use: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79416-ready-to-lay-oo-track-and-pointwork-some-drawings/&do=findComment&comment=1251576

[Joseph_Pestell]

 

Just one other point. There appears to be a sub theme of why do we need bull-head rail, 3-way points, etc because we model diesels, modern era, etc from some posters! OK that's fine and more power to your elbow's chaps but don't lose sight of the fact that by far the largest majority of modellers are steam-era. You just cannot afford to ignore them in favour of your own particular interest because that will alienate the biggest share of your market! The baseline is a track system which is an imorovement on Peco (not particularly hard to do!) which is available to the majority. So lets all pull together and see if we can't change a few minds!

 

Regards

 

Bill

Bill,

 

Please forgive me if I occasionally provoke a bit to weed out a few more responses.

 

I really don't know what the current market position is with regard to the overall percentages of modellers who model steam era, diesel era, or both. I suppose one could make a statistically viable analysis based on sales at some of the larger retailers (although one would have to be careful that the result was not skewed in some way).

 

I would certainly not suggest that we should not have BH track - but that already exists anyway. The question is whether we can justify the expense of two lots of pointwork which seems less likely. We have to look to the future (supposing that railway modelling has one) and I would expect that the balance would tip towards diesel era modelling. Once again some statistical analysis of past trends might be a useful guide.

 

With regard to  the 3-way point, I acknowledge that it is a desirable piece of kit. But if following the modular construction suggested (mainly to cut tooling costs), the 3-way point is going to be disproportionately expensive.

[hayfield]

John,

 

As I am currently mainly modelling (but very little) in N, I have followed the fiNetrax development (milled point bases) and also considered the possibilities of 3D printing.

 

3D printing looks to me like a great way to make custom-designed pointwork kits. I don't think it can work for ready-assembled track because I don't think that one could reliably print around the jig that is holding the rails in place. Not yet anyway - but certainly something to keep an eye on. And perhaps someone from the 3D Printing Forum here can advise. Sliding rail through chairs would be just too labour-intensive to be cost-effective on a commercial product.

 

 

Joseph

 

I was not thinking about a kit but from some enterprising person a ready to lay turnout.

 

I am assuming that for a gifted draughtsman, it would be possible to 3D print the turnout base.

 

Likewise you can obtain rails cut to length and shaped, these ( stock and switch rails) can be easily threaded through the chairs (I have done this on hand built track when for what ever reason I have had to remove rails) .

Common crossings are commercially available, so its just a case of designing the track base to accept these after printing along with the check rails.

 

Out of interest is it easy to stick 3D printed parts together?

 

Joseph, do try Templot again. If you can produce a turnout, you are 2 clicks of a mouse away from a crossover

[martin_wynne]

There is still a lot of bullhead track around in yards, sidings, goods loops, secondary and branch lines. Some of it is brand new. See for example: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/59973-brand-new-bullhead-points/

 

This means that bullhead track can be used by all modellers interested in steam or diesel, right back to pre-grouping times and up to the present day -- unless they are modelling a specific prototype with flat-bottom track.

 

Flat-bottom track started to be introduced in any quantity only after nationalisation in 1948, and by the end of steam it had reached only the major main lines, not the branch and secondary lines favoured by modellers. Which means it is out of place on most steam-era models, and certainly for anything pre-BR apart from a few trial locations.

 

So bullhead track can be sold to far more modellers than flat-bottom. It would seem to be a no-brainer for your imaginary manufacturer.

 

Martin.

[Mythocentric]

Hello Joseph

Perhaps I should clarify my position somewhat! I'm not arguing for BH or FB as separate items, although as a steam railway modeller that would be preferable from my point of view, just for a suitable (better?) compromise. I would be perfectly happy with FB rail as one of them. As has already been pointed out much can be disguised with judicious ballasting/weathering. Also as Peter pointed out in his post above I would also probably have to accept a hinged switch rail by the same token given the engineering problems in making a flexible switch rail last the course.

As for the 3-way turnout (double/single slip, etc), to provide a suitable alternative to Peco and others any range would have to include them to offer reasonable competition. After all they are not there just for the fun of it, they are there because a lot of people buy and use them to overcome space restrictions.

It may appear that I'm knocking Peco for doing what other people don't do (i.e. producing a fairly comprehensive track system). I'm not! I'm knocking them for not doing what other manufacturers do and listen to their customers. They've proved themselves capable of producing excellent track for US modellers (which I can fully attest to because I used it on my last Wisconsin Central themed layout which I undertook because I didn't want to run the superb UK models available now on badly compromised track and given my inability to hand-build track to a suitable standard) so why not for their home-based customers to which I can add a reasonably substantial market in the US who model UK steam and diesel.

As I said before I'm fully behind this thread and will continue to be so. Hopefully with us all pulling in the same direction someone out there may take note.

Finally, I asked the owner of my local model shop recently about his sales who informed me that around 80% are for steam related models. Whilst this is, of course, only one shop, judging from magazine articles and other retail advertising the largest market is for steam age with a fairly recent trend towards steam/early (green) diesel layouts. I suspect it may be a very long time before more recent 'modern image' becomes dominant! Perhap's Andy York may be able to give us better information on this?

EDIT: Perhaps it's time to take a different viewpoint from the British (and other countries) attitude when confronted with a new idea of "can we do it and how much will it cost?" to that of Japan's "Right! Whats the best way to do it?" outlook!

Regards

Bill

Edited December 11, 2013 by Mythocentric

[Clive Mortimore]

There is still a lot of bullhead track around in yards, sidings, goods loops, secondary and branch lines. Some of it is brand new. See for example: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/59973-brand-new-bullhead-points/

 

This means that bullhead track can be used by all modellers interested in steam or diesel, right back to pre-grouping times and up to the present day -- unless they are modelling a specific prototype with flat-bottom track.

 

Flat-bottom track started to be introduced in any quantity only after nationalisation in 1948, and by the end of steam it had reached only the major main lines, not the branch and secondary lines favoured by modellers. Which means it is out of place on most steam-era models, and certainly for anything pre-BR apart from a few trial locations.

 

So bullhead track can be sold to far more modellers than flat-bottom. It would seem to be a no-brainer for your imaginary manufacturer.

 

Martin.

Hi Martin

 

The Bedford to Hitchin branch had flat bottom concrete sleepered track in steam days. The Kettereing to Huntington branch had concrete sleepered bullhead track, it closed in 1959.

 

The LNWR mainline was mainly flat bottomed track in the 1950s.

 

The Midland mainline south of Luton had concrete sleepered flat bottom track on the Down main, flat bottom track wood sleepers on the Up main, flatbottom wooden sleepers with a different fixing on the Down slow and bullhead on the Up slow. in the 1960s.

 

Witham station had a GER interlaced bullhead point between these mast in the 1980s.

 

There is a need for both flatbottom and bullhead rail section, now should a manufacturer take on the task of making a selection of 00 points and trackwork let's hope they do both bullhead and flatbottom.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Clive Mortimore

[The Stationmaster]

 

There is a need for both flatbottom and bullhead rail section, now should a manufacturer take on the task of making a selection of 00 points and trackwork let's hope they do both bullhead and flatbottom.

 

I'm not going to debate what rail was in use where at what time because we can all quote examples to suit our case, whichever that case might be.

 

Logically r-t-r pointwork which offers greater fidelity of appearance should at some time come in both BH and FB form but that might be considered a step too far from Day 1 of manufacture and taking the competitive situation into account the logical way to go would be BH as plenty of FB, albeit not necessarily of the correct form is already available.  I think we must also keep focused on form and not go diving in too deep from the start - all the existing ranges came to '3-way' points after some time in the market with less exotic forms such as simple left & right handed leads, probably a diamond crossing of some sort, and even the extremely useful single slip - which in my view was in far more widespread use than a '3 way'.

[Jeff Smith]

I am an engineer but know very little about likely production techniques for producing RTR track. Would the rails be pre-loaded into the injection moulding die and the plastic moulded around them? Would the link wires be machine soldered or done by hand? Likewise, would the switch rails be added by hand or automated?

[hayfield]

I am an engineer but know very little about likely production techniques for producing RTR track. Would the rails be pre-loaded into the injection moulding die and the plastic moulded around them? Would the link wires be machine soldered or done by hand? Likewise, would the switch rails be added by hand or automated?

 

 

Jeff

 

I know that C&L flexitrack has a sleeper moulding of something like 12 sleepers, the rail is slid on to them after. No idea about Peco turnouts or track

[martin_wynne]

Double-junction part 2.

 

Click the tools > make split > make separate exit track menu item.

 

Then click the template > insert turnout in plain track menu item.

 

This is the result:

 

 

 

Now click the template > invert handing menu item.

 

Then click the SIZE F5 button at the top of the screen (or press the F5 key), and adjust the turnout size with the mouse to B-7, like this:

 

 

 

Now click the ROAM CTRL-F9 button at the top of the screen and use the mouse to move the turnout along the template into near alignment, like this:

 

 

 

Zoom in so that you can see the alignments clearly, like this:

 

 

 

And repeat ROAM CTRL-F9 until the rails are properly aligned, like this:

 

 

 

Here's the result so far. You can see that the turnouts are staggered as on the prototype:

 

 

 

More next time.

 

Martin.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Joseph

 

I was not thinking about a kit but from some enterprising person a ready to lay turnout.

 

I am assuming that for a gifted draughtsman, it would be possible to 3D print the turnout base.

 

Likewise you can obtain rails cut to length and shaped, these ( stock and switch rails) can be easily threaded through the chairs (I have done this on hand built track when for what ever reason I have had to remove rails) .

Common crossings are commercially available, so its just a case of designing the track base to accept these after printing along with the check rails.

 

Out of interest is it easy to stick 3D printed parts together?

 

Joseph, do try Templot again. If you can produce a turnout, you are 2 clicks of a mouse away from a crossover

 

Re Templot: I already did (post 201).

 

What you describe sounds more like a customised easy-to-build kit than a ready-to-lay turnout. That may be the way to go but would be rather expensive and still require more work from the end-user than some would want.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Double-junction part 2.

 

Click the tools > make split > make separate exit track menu item.

 

Then click the template > insert turnout in plain track menu item.

 

This is the result:

 

00_sf_double_junction5.png

 

 

Now click the template > invert handing menu item.

 

Then click the SIZE F5 button at the top of the screen (or press the F5 key), and adjust the turnout size with the mouse to B-7, like this:

 

00_sf_double_junction6.png

 

 

Now click the ROAM CTRL-F9 button at the top of the screen and use the mouse to move the turnout along the template into near alignment, like this:

 

00_sf_double_junction7.png

 

 

Zoom in so that you can see the alignments clearly, like this:

 

00_sf_double_junction8.png

 

 

And repeat ROAM CTRL-F9 until the rails are properly aligned, like this:

 

00_sf_double_junction9.png

 

 

Here's the result so far. You can see that the turnouts are staggered as on the prototype:

 

00_sf_double_junction10.png

 

 

More next time.

 

Martin.

 

Martin,

 

This is certainly helpful for anyone (including me) who wants to use Templot. But we are in danger of going off-topic: ready-to-lay pointwork.

 

You have though neatly highlighted the great difficulty of producing a properly curved double junction: the diamond has four different angles in it so has to use a specific piece of tooling rather than have anything in common with the tooling for other pointwork. That is going to make it much more expensive to produce.

 

Modellers have managed for 50 years with incorrect double junctions: are they now going to pay a hefty premium to rectify that?

 

And how many modellers have layouts large enough to have a double junction? 

 

Even on a large layout, the post 1980s modellers should probably go for a formation without a diamond (single or double lead).

 

Overall, it looks like the market for such an item could be rather small, too small to justify the costs. At best, it would come some way down the list of  priorities.

 

And we have not even looked at whether it should really be a switched diamond (which I note Gordon S has on Eastwood)!

[Joseph_Pestell]

What Martin's illustration from Templot does neatly show is that although pointwork with sensible crossing angles is a bit longer (300mm for the curved point against 250mm for the Peco), the overall impact on fitting a track layout on the baseboard can be very positive. Compare his Templot drawing with what you would get with two Peco LH turnouts and a diamond. Even ignoring the breaks of curve (ugly) that would result, one saves on overall length and gets much more flexibility about how to fit the layout into the room.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Start simple,and fill a niche not currently served.

 

Plain B6 and B8  turnouts with bullhead rail, ready to plonk, suitable for a significant majority of steam through to the early 70s layouts.

 

Design them sectionally, (Lima Nova) so that other small sections can be added to the range without having to retool a whole new piece of trackage.

[martin_wynne]

This is certainly helpful for anyone (including me) who wants to use Templot. But we are in danger of going off-topic: ready-to-lay pointwork.

 

Agreed. But there was some discussion about curved double-junctions, and how to produce them in Templot.

 

A straight regular double junction is much easier, requiring only 3 standard parts -- but needing a lot more room to fit it into a layout. This one uses two B-6 turnouts and a 1:6 regular diamond:

 

 

And here as a printed template (still with raw timbering conflicts -- this can all be tidied up in Templot but takes longer than the few clicks needed to create the basic formation):

 

 

Martin.

[The Stationmaster]

It strikes me that even the mention of a double track junction points to why " better OO track" will never take off.....them who like big roundy rondy layouts seem to be happy to run trains on track the works (like Peco) yjem that like to do it finer willtry to learn the small skills needed to make thier own....so where is the market for  new and improved OO track? If it was there Im pretty sure Peco would have gone ther already........

 

Maybe so Mickey but C&L and SMP seem to manage alright selling Code 75 bullhead track and the latter have been doing since Brunel was a lad.  You can (I have) use Peco Code 75 points with either, or both, (I have) and the result doesn't look too bad but it doesn't look right.  What I would like for my roundy - preferably before I start building it of course, are some points which look right with the plain line and which would look good under modern detail standards of engines and stock.  After all I don't really like the idea of things derailing every time they would try to pass over my hamfisted attempts at building pointwork.

[ThaneofFife]

All the too-ing and fro-ing in this thread must be enough to make anybody throw the towel in and bloody well scratch-build their own 

Look into my eyes.....look into my eyes.  We're being hypnotised!

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Yes, we're reinventing the wheel.  That's because the current wheel isn't very wheel-looking, and some of us would like a better looking wheel.  

 

I can think of at least 4 iterations of OO gauge class 47 shaped wheels that have been reinvented, and there are still some who want a better class 47 shaped wheel - and someone somewhere will see that as an opportunity and dive in.

 

I've also built my own track, and it was quite enjoyable and all that but I don't really want to do it that often.

 

So I'd be very happy to buy a box with a decent B8 bullhead turnout in it, just as I can with a current Peco turnout, and stick on my baseboard and plonk a Bachmann 04 and some 12T coal wagons on it and say to myself 'that looks good' whereas at the moment, I can plonk a Bachmann 04 and some 12T coal wagons on Peco track and think. 'that doesn't look so good'.  As the quality of rtr has improved, the quality of the track we run it on has remained static.  It's as jarring as running the aforementioned Bachmann 04 with a string of Triang coal wagons.

 

If you're happy with that, that's fine.  But I, and clearly a few others, would like to see what could be done that would be better than the default positions of handbuilt or Peco.

 

So far this has been a pretty civil discussion of a possible future track system, well done us. Track threads haven't fared so well in the past as I recall...

 

And now, a picture.

 

 

From the wonderful Finetrax initiative....

 

This is what I'd like to be able to buy in OO, ready to plonk straight out of the box.  I might like it even more if it had a more refined tiebar, and if the guard rails and frog wings were machined, not bent.  All achievable in OO.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Dr Gerbil-Fritters

[Joseph_Pestell]

Start simple,and fill a niche not currently served.

 

Plain B6 and B8  turnouts with bullhead rail, ready to plonk, suitable for a significant majority of steam through to the early 70s layouts.

 

Design them sectionally, (Lima Nova) so that other small sections can be added to the range without having to retool a whole new piece of trackage.

 

That's sort of the way that Peco always start their new ranges. Code 75 was a very slow seller at first because it was lacking some of the bits that people wanted to complete their layouts. Indeed, going back to the early 70s, I once got stuck on a layout waiting for the promised Peco Code 100 Single Slip - now available a mere four decades later. I ended up building (rather unsuccessfully) that layout in SMP.

 

But in general terms, you are probably right. If one can cover two radii of plain turnouts with matching diamonds and slips, that should cover the vast majority of what people need. Anything else is a bit of a bonus to be tackled when success is more assured.

 

I would still say that there are two niches here. FB can not be ignored as people want proper OO sleepering for that as well.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Yes, we're reinventing the wheel.  That's because the current wheel isn't very wheel-looking, and some of us would like a better looking wheel.  

 

I can think of at least 4 iterations of OO gauge class 47 shaped wheels that have been reinvented, and there are still some who want a better class 47 shaped wheel - and someone somewhere will see that as an opportunity and dive in.

 

I've also built my own track, and it was quite enjoyable and all that but I don't really want to do it that often.

 

So I'd be very happy to buy a box with a decent B8 bullhead turnout in it, just as I can with a current Peco turnout, and stick on my baseboard and plonk a Bachmann 04 and some 12T coal wagons on it and say to myself 'that looks good' whereas at the moment, I can plonk a Bachmann 04 and some 12T coal wagons on Peco track and think. 'that doesn't look so good'.  As the quality of rtr has improved, the quality of the track we run it on has remained static.  It's as jarring as running the aforementioned Bachmann 04 with a string of Triang coal wagons.

 

If you're happy with that, that's fine.  But I, and clearly a few others, would like to see what could be done that would be better than the default positions of handbuilt or Peco.

 

So far this has been a pretty civil discussion of a possible future track system, well done us. Track threads haven't fared so well in the past as I recall...

 

And now, a picture.

 

Untitled-2.jpg

 

This is what I'd like to be able to buy in OO, ready to plonk straight out of the box.  I might like it even more if it had a more refined tiebar, and if the guard rails and frog wings were machined, not bent.  All achievable in OO.

 

I can see why you would want them machined rather than bent if it was FB. Not sure why in BH.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Yes, my mistake.  Had my American head on there - bullhead would be bent, not planed.

 

Here's a nice gallery from the Templot Forum

 

http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=475&forum_id=11

Edited December 12, 2013 by Dr Gerbil-Fritters

[Joseph_Pestell]

Well, I think that we may just about have refined down what is and is not possible. And hopefully I have gained a bit more idea of what folks would want. From that, I think one could establish a list in order of priority for the first phase.

 

1) 60' (2 x 30' = 120mm) sleeper base with integrally moulded chairs (75BH). Modeller to thread rail (supplied).

2) 60' (2 x 30' = 120mm) sleeper base with integrally moulded fixings (82FB). Modeller to thread rail (supplied).

3) A6 turnout LH - 75BH (consisting of an LH A switch unit and a #6 crossing)

4) A6 turnout RH - 75BH (consisting of an RH A switch unit and a #6 crossing)

5) B8 turnout LH - 75BH (consisting of an LH B switch unit and a #8 crossing)

6) B8 turnout RH - 75BH (consisting of an RH B switch unit and a #8 crossing)

7) #8 diamond - 75BH (consisting of a K crossing unit and 2 #8 crossing units)

8) #8 single slip - 75BH (consisting of single slip unit and 2 #8 crossing units)

9) #8 double slip - 75BH (consisting of double slip unit and 2 #8 crossing units)

 

All the first phase would need to be launched together or in close succession. The rest could follow over a more protracted period but would include #8 turnouts diamonds and slips in 82FB as well as curved points and 3-way for 75BH.

 

Leaving that for the more distant future, it seems to me that the initial range needs 11 moulds, 9 assembly jigs and some other tooling for producing crossings, checkrails and the like. Not forgetting some vacform tooling to produce some eco-friendly packaging. None of the mouldings would need to be very big so tooling costs should not be that excessive.

 

It really ought to be a goer. So why hasn't it happened?

 

I think it may be that all the previous manufacturers (not just Peco, not just in the UK) have made the same mistake that they used to make with locomotives: trying to produce something that works both as a scale model and as a toy. The sort of product that we are looking at here - not dissimilar to  an SMP plastic based point - is quite fragile until laid in place on the layout. But for our purposes, that is absolutely fine.