martin_wynne

Hi Jinty, Bear in mind that the curved side rail in a slip has two set bends in it, which must be the correct distance apart, be of the correct angle, and be in the right places. So using that rail as a datum to work from may not be the easiest approach. It's important for a diamond-crossing or slip to have an accurate template. Assuming you have one you can print a rails-only copy on tracing paper which you can lay on the rail tops to check the alignment. For a diamond-crossing or single slip, my practice is (or rather was, it's quite a while since I built one) to start with one of the vees, aligning it usually with some existing track. Then add the long stock rail on the non-slip side. This has only one bend in it at the centre, and is not too difficult to bend and align to the template. Then add the second vee at the other end, checking 27 times that it is exactly the correct distance from the first vee. Laying a tracing paper template on top is the best way to do that if it's a curved formation. With both vees in place it is much easier to prepare and check the set bends in the opposite slip rail. For a double-slip I tack-lay temporary dummy rails through the K-crossings, again with the object of getting the two vees aligned and exactly the correct distance apart. After which the dummy rails can be removed. Like this: If you make sure you always write points plural, you can happily mean one thing and I can happily read another. regards, Martin.

Hi John, Forget "0-16.5" and search for "0n30" and "On30". See for example the NMRA standards at: http://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/s-3.2_2010.05.08.pdf Generally there is no track spacing standard for narrow-gauge lines, which are almost always single-track. Martin.

Yes. When printing templates for diamond-crossings and slips it is very important to set the gauge exactly to match what you will be using. Otherwise it is impossible for the rails to align correctly. For turnouts you could fudge building to 31.5mm gauge on a 32mm template, but not for diamond-crossings and slips. The TimberTracks range does not seem to have recognised this fact, selling the same bases for all gauges. Martin.

Walking the Montgomery Canal near Welshpool yesterday, and on the hill above. OS grid SJ 21538 05176 Belan Top Lock, showing the original Buck geared horizontal paddle design. OS grid SJ 21609 05735 OS grid SJ 21664 05847 OS grid SJ 21468 05567 OS grid SJ 21581 05213 Belan Bottom Lock. Martin.

That's such a fine piece of work it's a shame to keep calling it by the wrong name. It's a turnout, not a point. A point is a single moving point blade or switch rail: Martin.

Andy, Peco turnouts have a wire spot-welded to the underside of the crossing rails for the polarity connection. If your above suggestion of converting such turnouts to and fro in situ is intended seriously, you are on the wrong planet. Peco themselves introduced the small timber spacing when they first introduced plastic-based track circa 1960. "Peco Streamline with the finescale longer look" was the slogan. Presumably to get the tooling cost back the idea was to create an international product which could be sold around the world. They were a comparatively small company at the time, so a first step into plastic injection moulding would have been a significant investment. Unfortunately as the range expanded they were then locked into the design. And of course some 00 modellers like it, because a proper scale turnout of such short length looks like something found at the back of the gasworks, not in a running line. As your picture shows. Martin.

Andy, please post some photos of such commercial turnouts available in the UK, before and after conversion to 00-P, and after reversion to 00. Can this conversion/reversion be performed on turnouts in situ on a layout? Can it be done only once, or can they be swapped over for an evening's running and then swapped back? Here's a nice pic of a German swing-nose crossing: This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Description: Swing-nose Crossing. Photographed in Bonn main railway station. Date: 10 February 2005. Source: Own work. Author: user:Qualle This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. More info here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/73384-sprung-frog-turnouts/&do=findComment&comment=1081695 In contrast, here is another swing-nose crossing: Thanks to Brian O’Donovan. See: http://85a.co.uk/for...178&forum_id=22 regards, Martin.

Hi Andy, This needs some clarification, because on the face of it, it doesn't make sense. You are suggesting that someone modelling in 00 might like to change to P4 wheels on a few choice items of rolling stock, and then run them on only the plain-track sections of their existing layout? Not through any pointwork? No-one is going to change to P4 wheels and build a sprung/compensated chassis for a UK-outline steam locomotive, just to see how it runs on 00 plain track. With the idea of converting it back to RTR 00, or to full P4, at a later date. A few wagons maybe. A diesel locomotive perhaps. Such a process couldn't possibly be called an "easy and inexpensive" trial except perhaps for a couple of wagons. Which would tell them almost nothing about how easy it would be to build a P4 layout. Especially if this 00 modeller is using commercial track and has not tried handbuilding track. With some fine models from continental Europe, I can just about see a case for 00-P for modellers who want to mix Proto-87 models with UK 4mm models. But if you are now saying that 00-P is intended for 4mm models only, I can't see any rhyme or reason that anyone would want it. And if it is for plain track only, 00-P doesn't exist -- you don't need a standard if it's not intended for anyone to build pointwork. Just buy a yard of Peco track. Are you sure you are not just having fun with us? regards, Martin.

It's clever the way you photoshopped out the Eiffel Tower.

Templot can be set to any gauge or scale, so strictly speaking there is no need for a list at all. However it is convenient to have a list of pre-sets available so that users are not required to remember and enter the settings. The position of the wing rail knuckle is determined by the flangeway gap, and will be significantly different for 00-P. While it is possible to ignore the knuckle position on a template, it is a useful guide in preparing the length of the wing rails and positioning them. Also in Templot, when the crossing-type is "regular", the default length of crossing entry straight is determined by the flangeway gap. This in turn affects the lead length and radius. Admittedly this is Templot-specific and doesn't affect templates from other sources. But 00-P modellers may well be using Templot, so it is important to that in Templot at least, the flangeway gap is correctly entered if files are to be shared among users or posted online. There is no UK prototype for 16.5mm gauge pointwork in 4mm/ft scale. 16.5mm turnouts are significantly shorter than the corresponding prototype size, with correspondingly fewer timbers. The size and spacing of these timbers for 00 is the subject of endless debate in the UK. Note also that for pointwork the UK term is timbers or bearers, not sleepers, which are smaller in section and used for plain track. If you are launching a new standard for UK modellers it is as well to get the UK terminology correct. regards, Martin.

see: http://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=26457#p26457

Not forgetting 0n30.

Hi Andy, If you choose to stick with the overscale 0.68mm P4 flangeway I'm minded not to add 00-P as a Templot pre-set. It could still be created as a custom setting of course. I can just about see an argument for an exact-scale 4mm/ft model of 4ft-1.5in track. But exact-scale means 0.58mm flangeways in 4mm/ft scale. (Which conveniently makes the track dimensions effectively identical to Proto-87). The only argument I can see for using the P4 flangeway would be a mixed gauge P4 + 00-P layout, and I can't imagine anyone building such a thing. If the 00-P track dimensions match Proto-87, all the existing recommendations for minimum radius, 6-wheel vehicles, locomotive axle sideplay, etc., can be lifted straight from Proto-87, and there is no need to derive it all again. Presumably Proto87 modellers are happy with the restrictions it imposes, so 00-P modellers are likely to be the same. regards, Martin.

The user base appears to be modellers who want to mix 3.5mm/ft H0 models and 4mm/ft 00 models on the same track. Of course they can do that now very easily, as 00-BF / DOGA Imtermediate is virtually identical to the NMRA H0 track standards for handbuilt track. Or they can just buy Peco track. But Andy is claiming that there is a sub-set of this user base who want to do the same thing using exact-scale wheels and flangeways. If there are any such modellers, they must be vanishingly few -- I can't recall a single one making a sound on RMweb or anywhere else. I think Andy is pulling our leg. Martin.

Hi Andy, Presumably therefore you will be modifying your Proto87 models to a non-standard back-to-back, if you want to run them both on the same track? Would they then still run on other Proto87 layouts? For P4 wheels and flangeways on 16.50mm track gauge, the maximum back-to-back is 15.42mm. Yet this is the same figure as the minimum back-to-back for NMRA Proto87. I'm still not entirely convinced that this is a serious topic, and that you are not having some fun with us. Martin.

I'll think about it. The point is though that they are all GWR-specific, and if I start adding pre-sets for specific prototypes the list will never end. Already we have the GWR switches in the switch list. The Irish ones are a legacy of my own interest, and in any event 5ft-3in is regarded as standard-gauge in Ireland. The best way would be for folks to create custom settings and then share the Templot .box files. For example this would be a natural thing for the Broad Gauge Society to do, and you could then include the baulk timbering at the same time. Templot .box files can be posted here on RMweb and also on the Templot Club forum. The list in Templot was only ever intended to be a few convenient pre-sets, any others being created as custom settings. The list seems to have got out of hand. regards, Martin.

Well only 2 for 00 in the menu short list, 00-SF and 00-BF. I suspect many users never delve further than that. I'm reluctant to add pre-sets to the main list for other than standard gauge. Otherwise we would have a flood of narrow-gauge and broad-gauge variants, overwhelming the list entirely, which is already more than long enough. I added another standard gauge option only yesterday (P-32). But any gauge or scale can be created as a custom setting in Templot, and shared with other users by means of Templot files. regards, Martin.

Bit of a jump there to assume the wheels have to be available commercially. Andy is an engineer, he can surely turn some wheels to Proto-87 profile? If he is modelling Proto-87 he is probably doing that already. Martin.

He could do that simply by putting Proto87 wheels on his 4mm models, using the existing Proto87 standards. There would be no reason to create a new 00-P standard. 00-P would be essentially the same standard as Proto87, but in 4mm/ft scale. So 4mm/ft scale rail, sleepers and spacings. And presumably UK-style bullhead chairs, pandrol clips and baseplates, REA switches, double-track spacing, etc., if it is to be called a variant of 00. Which suggests that Andy wants to build a P4 layout for 4ft-1.5in gauge, but run his 3.5mm/ft scale models on it. Either way, I don't believe there are many who would want to do the same. 4ft-1.5in gauge is popular in the UK, but primarily so that modellers can use RTR 4ft-1.5in models straight out of the box. Not many would want to stick with 4ft-1.5in gauge when re-wheeling such models with exact-scale wheels. Martin.

The point is that Andy is desperately keen that everyone continues to use 16.5mm track, and sees the trend to 16.2mm (00-SF) as a threat to his Proto-87 product range. 16.2mm in the UK doesn't really affect him, but if it takes off in the USA (H0-SF, and Terry Flynn) for use with the increasingly popular code 88 wheels, Proto-87 would be all but dead. Its main selling point is that it uses the same track gauge as regular H0. Also in the USA is the notion that turnouts can be changed from one standard to another by replacing the crossing and check rails, leaving the track gauge the same. No one in the UK would dream of doing that, we would just build a new one. But we don't have the massive layouts with hundreds of turnouts in situ which are common in the USA. There's maybe a niche market of a handful of users for 00-P in the UK, so we may as well get the dimensions sorted out. regards, Martin.

OK. But in that case it won't be compatible with Proto-87, which I thought was your intention? 00-P check gauge = 16.50 - 0.68 = 15.82mm. S3.5 check gauge = 16.48 - 0.58 = 15.90mm. (NMRA is 15.88 to 15.95) P-87 check gauge = 16.50 - 0.60 = 15.90mm. I think most P4 users would say that if starting again the flangeway could have been 0.58mm, the same as S4. I think that might be a better choice for 00-P. regards, Martin.

Is it open season now?

What production run? This is a track standard for modellers to use when building their track in the privacy of their own workshop. If they want to. Or not if they don't. There is nothing to be produced. You seem to know more about my living than I do. I'm retired, have been for several years, and my only "product", Templot, is available free of charge for anyone to use. Martin.

Why not? No-one is under the slightest obligation to adopt it. All options have some pros and cons. This one allows 3.5mm/ft and 4mm/ft models to run together on the same track with much finer flangeways than H0 or 00. I'm thinking not many will want to do that, but for those who do the finer flangeways can make it easier to create complex track formations such as tandems and slips. The more choices the merrier. The only important point is that each one should have its own name, and Andy has obviously considered that as a priority to avoid confusion. Martin.

Hi Andy, It's difficult to see much advantage in this. Changing every wheel while retaining the 16.5mm gauge, and then rebuilding all the pointwork so that no other 00 models can run on it, doesn't look like a half-way house to anywhere. If rebuilding all the track you may as well be doing it in P4. Before I can put 00-P as a pre-set in Templot I need to know your proposed flangeway gap. There are currently several dimensions in use: S3.5 (Proto-87 USA and UK): 0.53 - 0.58mm P-87 (Proto-87 Europe): 0.60mm S4: 0.58mm P4: 0.68mm regards, Martin.