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

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

..., you would would want nuts 

 

Plenty of those in the track threads....

 

[Grovenor]

 

Strictly speaking, if they are GW chairs, you would would want nuts rather than bolts

GWR chairs were fixed with bolts, fitted through the timber from underneath so you see the bolt end with nut fitted.

Other railways don't use bolts, they use chairscrews and treenails.

Strictly!

Regards

Edited April 20, 2016 by Grovenor

[martin_wynne]

GWR chairs were fixed with bolts, fitted through the timber from underneath so you see the bolt end with nut fitted.

 

Only on plain track.

 

On pointwork GWR chairs were fixed with the bolts from above. But still only 2 per chair.

 

The bolts were square-headed, 7/8" dia, with a fang-nut on the underside.

 

Here's a picture:

 

 

And the drawing:

 

 

Martin.

Edited April 20, 2016 by martin_wynne

[AndyID]

Some two-bolters for GW aficionados.

 

 

 

[Ravenser]

As it is probably the most popular steam era railway company, that makes some sense......

 

Not these days - ex LNER and ex SR would be ahead.

 

However this level of fine detail isn't really an issue for the market. Exactoscales'  simple to build P4 point kits are based on LNER prototype - I think post-war? - because that's Andy Jukes' modelling interest. But they have proved very acceptable to P4 modellers modelling all Regions - and BR modern image modellers as well.

 

By definition the OO market is less hung-up on getting everything right in the finest detail than the P4 market, so I'm sure the DCC Products points would be acceptable in that respect. A GWR point is a lot more like an LNER point than a current Peco Streamline code 75 point is

[martin_wynne]

Exactoscale's simple to build P4 point kits are based on LNER prototype - I think post-war?

 

They are actually based* on the REA "Standard Railway Equipment" designs of 1925. Exactoscale used the LNER drawings of 1926, but they are essentially the standard REA designs and equally applicable to all post-grouping companies other than the GWR.

 

Given that these LNER-sourced REA drawings are readily available (reprint from the North Eastern Railway Association**), I'm a bit puzzled why DCC Concepts seem to have chosen a more specific pre-grouping MR design. The REA designs are much more widely applicable, familiar to modellers, and still essentially in use today for new bullhead track, 90 years later. See:

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/59973-brand-new-bullhead-points/

 

You can't say that about the multitude of flat-bottom designs used over the past 50 years.

 

* "based on" because Exactoscale moved the wing-rail front joint by one timber space for production reasons.

 

** see: https://sites.google.com/site/northeasternrailwayassociation/sales/sales---other-facsimile-publications

         "STANDARD RAILWAY EQUIPMENT – PERMANENT WAY, 1926" - half-way down the page.

 

I apologise to those who regard accurate details as pettifogging nit-picking. Some folks like to have the proper information, even if they then decide to disregard it.

 

Martin.

[The Great Bear]

 

 

Given that these LNER-sourced REA drawings are readily available (reprint from the North Eastern Railway Association**), I'm a bit puzzled why DCC Concepts seem to have chosen a more specific pre-grouping MR design.

Martin.

 

I believe LMS/MR is Richard Johnson's personal modelling interest...

[autocoach]

Not these days - ex LNER and ex SR would be ahead.

 

Lets make that SR and LNER (LMS too and possibly GWR) as for some of us 1948 has not yet dawned but 1923 is long ago.

[hayfield]

 Are we not getting to the stage where some do actually care about modelling track in as much detail as they do with their stock and buildings both in era and locality !!

[Grovenor]

 Are we not getting to the stage where some do actually care about modelling track in as much detail as they do with their stock and buildings both in era and locality !!

Some care, some don't, its been like that for the last 50 years, Some of those who cared developed P4! I don't see much change over that period, or recently.

Regards

[Oakydoke]

Are we not getting to the stage where some do actually care about modelling track in as much detail as they do with their stock and buildings both in era and locality !!

If you don't mind me saying, that's all well and good, but nothing to do with this thread and the subject of "better looking" RTR 00 track.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Oakydoke

[Edwardian]

If you don't mind me saying, that's all well and good, but nothing to do with this thread and the subject of "better looking" RTR 00 track.

 

Try going elsewhere and saying "that's all well and good, but nothing to do with this thread and the subject of 'PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO'" and see how far that gets you!!!!!

 

[smiley face winking]

[hayfield]

If you don't mind me saying, that's all well and good, but nothing to do with this thread and the subject of "better looking" RTR 00 track.

 

 

Totally free world, and thankfully within certain limits you are free to express yourself on this forum

 

I think I have missed the point you are making. As this thread is about a product which will be setting new standards for many who model in 00 gauge(4 mm scale) where they no longer will have to put up with totally un-prototipical (for those modelling steam era) H0 scale track with flat bottom rail and clips

 

Those who posted prior to my post were commenting not just about 4 mm 00 gauge bullhead track but which region would be the most popular, not so long ago mainstream thought was that H0 gauge flatbottom track to 00 gauge was totally acceptable, which it may still be for some modellers

[AndyID]

If you don't mind me saying, that's all well and good, but nothing to do with this thread and the subject of "better looking" RTR 00 track.

 

Enjoy herding cats, do you?

 

[Vistisen]

Enjoy herding cats, do you?

 

Herding cats is easy, this is like stacking soup

[adanapress]

Hi, Joseph,  What a very interesting thread,  I learn all the time. I'm into soldering up my own 00 DOGA fine pointwork, using SMP components. and enjoy it.     In passing,  I saw that they had just delivered by SEA (!!!)  to Scrabster harbour  a large quantity of new rail in SIXTY FOOT  lengths  for track re-laying on the Far North Lines.  Do you happen to know if that  was BH?     And also if the PW chaps thereabouts are with it  on thermit rail welding??  or is it really being laid as 60s?   

[Ben Alder]

Apparently 60 'bullhead for relaying the Thurso branch. AFAIK, its being used as such .

[Joseph_Pestell]

I had missed these more recent comments. How interesting to see new BH rail being laid.

 

Back to theme, I am sure that you have all realised that I have shunted my own project to one side a bit while waiting to see how the Peco and DCC Concepts products come out. No point in over duplication. I am disappointed at the lack of progress from those suppliers and radio-silence on some of the important details.

 

It's still very much in mind though as I see some considerable disadvantages to the approach that Peco have taken on this.

[Vistisen]

I had missed these more recent comments. How interesting to see new BH rail being laid.

 

Back to theme, I am sure that you have all realised that I have shunted my own project to one side a bit while waiting to see how the Peco and DCC Concepts products come out. No point in over duplication. I am disappointed at the lack of progress from those suppliers and radio-silence on some of the important details.

 

It's still very much in mind though as I see some considerable disadvantages to the approach that Peco have taken on this.

 

Hi Joseph.

 

I quite understand your reluctance. The market is fickle, uncertain ,and post Brexit even more likely to be affected by thing beyond your control.  But I was hoping...

 

I am just about to start the track laying of a new layout and to be honest things are a bit of a mess:

Plan A  was going to be the DCC concepts route with their flex track, combined with dcc rail hand built points on shallow sleepers, But I discovered I could not build points with stainless steel rail.

Plan B was to build points with C&L rail, still on thin sleepers and reuse the pack of DCC flextrack. But I can not even reliably solder dropper wires on to the rail without it looking horrible, Not only that, using the DCC fishplates give problems connecting flexi track to the C&L rail, They simply will not go on to the rail without buckling,

So plan C was to change to Peco flex track. But that has thicker sleepers which mean they don't fit the points that have already been built.

 

so I had arrived at plan D which is to hope that you were about to release something that has shallow sleepers and nickel silver rail that matches C&L bullhead rail.

 

But now I can see I must think of a plan E  

[martin_wynne]

But now I can see I must think of a plan E

 

Your could build your own plain track? It's not essential to use flexi-track.

 

If you use 0.8mm plywood sleepers, it would match your thin pointwork.

 

 

The above using Brook Smith soldered rivet construction with cosmetic chairs, but it would look the same with functional chairs and solvent.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Stephen Freeman]

Well, I don't have a problem with either C&L or DCC Concepts. Your problem probably stems from trying to solder either or both using the wrong approach.

 

To solder to the stainless steel rail, you need a decent soldering iron (with a proper chisel bit not the pointy excuse for a bit they seem to come with), preferably a temperature controlled job, cranked up to 450 degrees C, Lead Free solder and a flux that actually works. The DCC Concepts flux is great for soldering Nickel Silver and  Steel rail (it doesn't seem to cause any rusting), however for Stainless Steel I have so far found Building O Gauge online safety Flux to work better.

 

For chairs, rail joiners (I refuse to call them fishplates, C&L are the ones who sell functional ones), it's always best to chamfer the rail end (leaving the head intact), so they go on easier. You can cut the chamfered bit off afterwards if you wish.

Edited July 2, 2017 by Stephen Freeman

[hayfield]

Hi Joseph.

 

I quite understand your reluctance. The market is fickle, uncertain ,and post Brexit even more likely to be affected by thing beyond your control.  But I was hoping...

 

I am just about to start the track laying of a new layout and to be honest things are a bit of a mess:

Plan A  was going to be the DCC concepts route with their flex track, combined with dcc rail hand built points on shallow sleepers, But I discovered I could not build points with stainless steel rail.

Plan B was to build points with C&L rail, still on thin sleepers and reuse the pack of DCC flextrack. But I can not even reliably solder dropper wires on to the rail without it looking horrible, Not only that, using the DCC fishplates give problems connecting flexi track to the C&L rail, They simply will not go on to the rail without buckling,

So plan C was to change to Peco flex track. But that has thicker sleepers which mean they don't fit the points that have already been built.

 

so I had arrived at plan D which is to hope that you were about to release something that has shallow sleepers and nickel silver rail that matches C&L bullhead rail.

 

But now I can see I must think of a plan E

 

 

I think your issue is with soldering, not the track. Like all things its a simple activity, which after getting the correct equipment and a little practice will pay dividends not only with track laying but also other modelling activities

 

Step but a good quality iron, some solder wire and some liquid flux. I have an Antex 25 watt iron.

 

Practice soldering skills on some scrap materials, top tip is is to keep the tip of the iron clean, no crud on it and clean with a sponge, never abrasives

 

Use a decent quality flux, apply flux to each part, then tin (put solder on) both parts, flux the joint and solder (use a small amount of solder) both parts together, job done

[Jeff Smith]

"So plan C was to change to Peco flex track. But that has thicker sleepers which mean they don't fit the points that have already been built."

 

Surely suitable thickness packing under the points would allow you to match to thick sleepered plain track. But, don't C&L make thin sleepered track?

[Stephen Freeman]

"So plan C was to change to Peco flex track. But that has thicker sleepers which mean they don't fit the points that have already been built."

 

Surely suitable thickness packing under the points would allow you to match to thick sleepered plain track. But, don't C&L make thin sleepered track?

Of course there is always SMP.

[Vistisen]

Of course there is always SMP.

 

Yes that plan is in there as well but it costs a lot more than the others