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

[Joseph_Pestell]

Right, where to begin!

 

Yes, there have been threads on this subject before. They have tended to get locked after a "gauge war" has broken out. And that's a pity because we may as well recognise that the vast majority of 4mm scale railway modelling involves the use of 16.5mm (OO) track and, given the existing manufacturers' commitment to that standard, it's not going to change anytime soon.

 

If your preference is EM or P4, that's great - but this thread is not for you.

 

I have started this thread because there started to be a hijack of DJModels' wishlist thread. It seemed better to have a new thread devoted to this subject.

 

Declaring my hand, I have had a long interest in this subject both as a modeller and as a trader (in times past).

 

I have tried (40 years ago!) building my own track using SMP components and not done well with it. I do recognise that one can build a more realistic layout with handbuilt track (even in OO) than with the limitations of a small range of manufactured items.

 

I have visited a specialist track manufacturer (Peco) and have some understanding of the manufacturing and commercial issues. I know that it is not easy and is one of the hardest areas of railway modelling in which to make a return on the capital invested within a sensible timescale.

 

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

 

But doing that implies FB rail. With more and more modellers going for the diesel era, perhaps that is OK. Perhaps even one might be able to use BH rail but to the same dimensions so that the same machinery could be used.

 

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

 

No6 turnouts LH&RH

No8 turnouts LH&RH

No6 diamond

No8 diamond

No6 single slip

No6 double slip

Curved turnouts LH&RH

Timber sleepered flextrack

Concrete sleepered flextrack

 

All to be DCC compliant, Code 83FB, pointblades without hinges.

 

Over to you.....

 

Edit: Some drawings have been uploaded (page 7 of the thread) and I will do some more over the next few days hopefully.

Edit: For those that don't want to read the whole thread, there is a summary on Page 38.

Edit: And a further excellent summary on Page 42.

Edit: Poll created on 14 Jan 2014 and hopefully attached here somewhere.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Joseph_Pestell

[locoholic]

I agree with all that - I would add two items - a diamond crossing with one of the tracks curved, so that you could make a realistic double junction; and a three-way point.

 

What really annoys me is when the RTR manufacturers place their products on hand-built track for the photos in their catalogues, which says to me that they acknowledge their own track looks a bit naff, but they're not willing to invest in producing better for their loyal OO gauge customers. 

[frobisher]

What I would like to see is a certain degree of "self containment" in point work almost a la Kato.  Not moulded ballast or integral point motors, but the electrical do dads.

 

Live frog pointwork that does not require external switch management, that is implemented in a robust way.  In N gauge at least, Kato offer their #5 (I think...) point set up so that you can have it as live frog or dead (the frog is metal, but is insulated from the heel (I think - not 100% au fait with the terminology?) rails that exit the point), it can also set up as power routing (as is the default for Hornby track) or fully live.  These settings are made using screws to make links on the bottom of the point.

[Joseph_Pestell]

What I would like to see is a certain degree of "self containment" in point work almost a la Kato.  Not moulded ballast or integral point motors, but the electrical do dads.

 

Live frog pointwork that does not require external switch management, that is implemented in a robust way.  In N gauge at least, Kato offer their #5 (I think...) point set up so that you can have it as live frog or dead (the frog is metal, but is insulated from the heel (I think - not 100% au fait with the terminology?) rails that exit the point), it can also set up as power routing (as is the default for Hornby track) or fully live.  These settings are made using screws to make links on the bottom of the point.

 

This sounds like a very good idea. It would add a bit to manufacturing cost but broaden the appeal considerably for those who are not keen to commit to DCC yet.

[cromptonnut]

I agree with the "curved diamond" idea - one of the few "toy train" things you can't get round very easily unless you build your own, or get someone to build it for you.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I agree with all that - I would add two items - a diamond crossing with one of the tracks curved, so that you could make a realistic double junction; and a three-way point.

 

What really annoys me is when the RTR manufacturers place their products on hand-built track for the photos in their catalogues, which says to me that they acknowledge their own track looks a bit naff, but they're not willing to invest in producing better for their loyal OO gauge customers. 

 

A curved diamond would indeed be a great improvement on current offerings. I'm not sure if one could manage the geometry so that there could be just one in the range or if it would need a LH version and a RH version. If only one, the sleepering would, I think, have to be on the diagonal which is right for some UK railways and wrong for others. Perhaps someone on here who is clever with Templot could sketch up an example for us and post it? (To match a No8 turnout, the curved route will want to be about 1m60 radius)

 

Arguably a curved diamond is only for mainline trackage and so one would do the No8 diamond as curved and the No6 diamond straight (for trailing leads into goods yards).

 

I agree that in the UK context a 3-way point is very often useful and would need to be included in the range at some point, probably as a No6.

[Joseph_Pestell]

To go back to a posting on the DJM wishlist thread, a scissors crossover. The poster suggested that Peco had never done this in OO because their assembly equipment was not large enough to do it. I rather think that may be right, hence the O gauge diamond and double slip being in two halves.

 

I don't know how many of you are familiar with the short-lived Lima/Rivarossi range of Code 83 track. This was very modular in design so that one could make up quite complex formations including scissors crossovers with slips. The main drawback of the system was an overwide six-foot like so many systems that are designed to be used with sectional curves at tight radii. But the basic idea has a lot to commend it.

 

People who have looked at the Grantham Streamliner Age thread will see how much the look of Peco track can be improved with a reduced gap between double-trackage (unless modelling GW ex-Broad Gauge). What do people think should be the default measurement for OO? Is it best to make it to scale (47mm centre-to-centre) and put in filler pieces at the crossovers for those that need it wider?

Edited December 5, 2013 by Joseph_Pestell

[frobisher]

This sounds like a very good idea. It would add a bit to manufacturing cost but broaden the appeal considerably for those who are not keen to commit to DCC yet.

It's one of the reasons why Kato is very DCC compatible.

 

This I would see as a small exposed piece of PCB underneath the point at a convenient position. Links/clips could be supplied, but it would also give solder points to allow more traditional wiring operation of the point. If I get time today, I'll try and do a diagram of what I have in my mind for this.

[Ron Ron Ron]

You could add to the list, a pre-weathered finish as on the Tillig Elite range of track.

 

It helps by taking away that all over shininess and although it can be used "as is", it does provide a good base for further weathering and painting.

 

 

.

[Gruffalo]

To go back to a posting on the DJM wishlist thread, a scissors crossover. The poster suggested that Peco had never done this in OO because their assembly equipment was not large enough to do it. I rather think that may be right, hence the O gauge diamond and double slip being in two halves.

 

I don't know how many of you are familiar with the short-lived Lima/Rivarossi range of Code 83 track. This was very modular in design so that one could make up quite complex formations including scissors crossovers with slips. The main drawback of the system was an overwide six-foot like so many systems that are designed to be used with sectional curves at tight radii. But the basic idea has a lot to commend it.

 

People who have looked at the Grantham Streamliner Age thread will see how much the look of Peco track can be improved with a reduced gap between double-trackage (unless modelling GW ex-Broad Gauge). What do people think should be the default measurement for OO? Is it best to make it to scale (47mm centre-to-centre) and put in filler pieces at the crossovers for those that need it wider?

Some valid arguments there however we must recognise that a 70ft carriage running along a curve will overhang the inside of the track between the bogies whilst it will swing outside the track at its ends. We model at an approximate scale but are guided by a 16.5mm track gauge that approximates to 4mm = 1ft whilst our rolling stock tends to be closer to scale with stock being 34mm wide = 8'6". The 51mm gap between tracks makes a little allowance towards these issues whilst 47mm would reduce the gap and possibly cause contact on bends unless the between centres distance is increased and this would become more noticeable for most of us. I therefore feel that the 51mm gap is more suitable for my needs (GWR / Western lines).

[cheesysmith]

The gap between track is quoted as 6ft with 2 running lines, and 10ft between 2 pairs of running lines (ie-a 4 track formation ). You can reduce the gap for 2 tracks but would then need to increase it for pointwork formations on a 4 track layout.

 

I too would like more realistic track, but the variations in the prototype would make it commercially too expensive. You could have a limited range of turnouts, but a proper range like peco, too expensive.

[martin_wynne]

There are already trade moves afoot.

 

C&L are promising turnout kits for 00 matching the style of the Exactoscale P4 kits. Very easy to assemble -- all rails ready-prepared, chairs located by pips on the plastic timbering base. No soldering needed. See: http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=537

 

Their existing turnout kits for 00 are almost as easy to assemble: http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=346_375_377_378

 

And 00 finescale track developments are promised from a manufacturer south of the equator.

 

All a lot more expensive than Peco, but so would be any other of the suggestions in this topic. Whereas handbuilt track on copper-clad is inexpensive and not as difficult as you might think. Why not try it? At one time this hobby was all about making things rather than buying things.

 

Martin.

[Gruffalo]

There are already trade moves afoot.

 

C&L are promising turnout kits for 00 matching the style of the Exactoscale P4 kits. Very easy to assemble -- all rails ready-prepared, chairs located by pips on the plastic timbering base. No soldering needed. See: http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=537

 

Their existing turnout kits for 00 are almost as easy to assemble: http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=346_375_377_378

 

And 00 finescale track developments are promised from a manufacturer south of the equator.

 

All a lot more expensive than Peco, but so would be any other of the suggestions in this topic. Whereas handbuilt track on copper-clad is inexpensive and not as difficult as you might think. Why not try it? At one time this hobby was all about making things rather than buying things.

 

Martin.

I agree that the hobby used to be more oriented towards hand built stuff but in current times, I find time is one dimension that is in short supply. I want to complete many kits of rolling stock and locomotives, in addition to building baseboards, creating scenery, constructing and automating signals. Something has to give and for me, that is the track. I fully agree that hand-built track is a worthwhile exercise but surely that then means the value should be enhanced by going to EM or P4 rather than the compromise of OO?

[cromptonnut]

Some of us have tried hand-building points - even using the C&L kits as you describe - and still can't get results that we find acceptable.

 

Not everyone has the time, patience, budget, skills or eyesight to scratchbuild everything. 

[martin_wynne]

Not everyone has the time, patience, budget, skills or eyesight to scratchbuild everything. 

 

I said nothing about scratchbuilding everything. But compared with building a loco or coach from scratch or kits, copper-clad trackwork is easy.

 

If you stick to 00 gauge you can have good looking handbuilt track but buy in the RTR stock to run directly on it out of the box. In EM or P4 you immediately have to mess with or completely replace the wheels.

 

Finescale 00 is available now -- otherwise how could Gordon S have done this? Yes this is 00 gauge:

 

 

 

 

SMP Scaleway flexible 00 track. Copper-clad handbuilt pointwork to 00-SF standard. See: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/3422-eastwood-town-update/

 

Martin.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Martin,

 

Glad to have you on board this topic for your wide knowledge of trackwork issues.

 

But the "given" of this thread is that there are modellers who don't want to build their own pointwork - even with kits (I have a couple of dozen in the cupboard).

[cromptonnut]

I consider copper clad track "scratchbuilding"  - at least I assume most of us don't have a machine in our shed that allows us to take steel rod and roll it into miniature rail profile...

 

Whatever the terminology, making my own track is not something I personally would find a great deal of pleasure in spending my time on.

 

It's pointwork that's the problem.  Flexible track allows you to achieve most other things.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Mention earlier of curved diamonds, brings us to another key question.

 

A curved diamond is only going to be right if the turnout it is attached too is curved throughout its length - i.e. beyond the crossing (frog) like for instance RocoLine 83.

 

But such a turnout does not work well for crossovers. So perhaps the no6 turnouts would want to be straight beyond the crossing (like Peco) and the no8 turnouts curved beyond the crossing which also works better for diverging routes.

 

As Martin says, that still leaves us a long way short of covering all the options. Where three or more running tracks are involved you would want both turnouts and diamonds that were straight through the crossings and no6 might be too tight a radius for some.

[Gruffalo]

Gordon S's excellent model I think uses hand-built points but ready-made flexible track. The arguments therefore become somewhat distorted although I do feel that the overall effect is achieved by the track, ballasting, adjacent lines and trackside accessories or clutter. I believe that the shortcomings of the track can be mitigated or even lost when the rest of the scene is of sufficient quality.

 

Edit to add examples:  Little Bytham, Peterborough North, A nod to Brent, Grantham to name but a few. Some of those use hand-built track, others are standard bought options but they do have one thing in common - the whole looks very good due to everything else around the tracks.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Gruffalo

[cromptonnut]

Unfortunately any 'off the shelf' system is going to be a compromise and will never cost-effectively cover all the options available when using something like Templot to cover all angles for perfectly smooth looking trackwork.

 

But then how many modern image modellers still use bullhead rail, for example, instead of FB and Pandrol clips on concrete sleepers?

 

Peco's O gauge range, for example, left right and Y are available in FB rail as well as flexi, but the curved points and slips aren't - and then they wonder why BH sells much more than FB.

[Joseph_Pestell]

The gap between track is quoted as 6ft with 2 running lines, and 10ft between 2 pairs of running lines (ie-a 4 track formation ). You can reduce the gap for 2 tracks but would then need to increase it for pointwork formations on a 4 track layout.

 

I too would like more realistic track, but the variations in the prototype would make it commercially too expensive. You could have a limited range of turnouts, but a proper range like peco, too expensive.

 

Reducing the double-track spacing to 47mm (as compared to the 52mm of Peco) does give problems as soon as one hits a curve of less than about 4' radius for 64' stock (Bullied/Mk1) and 6' radius for 75' stock (Mk3).

 

I still think, on balance, that it is better to provide turnouts that form a crossover that gives the correct "6-foot" (well, as correct as it can be given that we are lacking 7" on the track gauge) and if people need more space they can do that easily enough with an infill piece of track.

 

The Lima/Rivarossi Code 83 set up formed crossovers from three units: two blade units (RH or LH) and a unit (RH or LH) with the two crossings. Using that set-up, you could provide alternative track centres just by changing the middle unit. I wonder if Hornby inherited the tooling for that system or has it disappeared?

[cromptonnut]

I think that's the point though Joseph, the Peco track centres are meant to be used with "trainset curves" which need the wider gap so you don't get crashes on the overhang.

 

If you're able to use a more accurate tighter centre then I assume that you'd have the space available - at least on the scenic area - to use much gentler and more prototypical curvature.  However, I'm sure many of us have used setrack curves on hidden areas and at the end of the layout to get round to the fiddle yard.

[Joseph_Pestell]

C&L are promising turnout kits for 00 matching the style of the Exactoscale P4 kits. Very easy to assemble -- all rails ready-prepared, chairs located by pips on the plastic timbering base. No soldering needed. See: http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=537

 

Their existing turnout kits for 00 are almost as easy to assemble: http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=346_375_377_378

 

 

No soldering needed. Those words are music to my ears! Not clear to me from the website how the tiebars are done.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think that's the point though Joseph, the Peco track centres are meant to be used with "trainset curves" which need the wider gap so you don't get crashes on the overhang.

 

If you're able to use a more accurate tighter centre then I assume that you'd have the space available - at least on the scenic area - to use much gentler and more prototypical curvature.  However, I'm sure many of us have used setrack curves on hidden areas and at the end of the layout to get round to the fiddle yard.

 

Yes, I believe it was a conscious decision by Peco to accommodate sharp curves on the visible part of layouts. Once again, one wonders if they might not have revisited that question when designing the Code 75 range (and indeed the geometry as well to give better crossing angles as they did in N with the "55"). By the time they designed the HO/OO Code 75, they had had the O (BH124) range for many years and those turnouts are made to give a proper "6-foot". 

[Gruffalo]

A route down which I have travelled is to use Peco Finescale throughout, using large radius (including curved) points on lines which will be predominantly those over which coaches will travel, medium radius where loco release and empty coach stock movements will occur and small radius in places representing coal yards and private owners' sidings. I have tried to keep all the first described at a minimum of 36" radius (sometimes 60" as far as possible) with 4-6-0 locos, the second uses 30" minimum (these points are 36" nominal) for 2-6-2 prairies and the sidings are 24" minimum radius as they will use 10' and 12' wheelbase wagons and 0-6-0 panniers for shunting.

 

I only hope it turns out as well as it looks plotted out from Anyrail at full size.