IanStock

Yes, I contemplated that. The Peco plain track isn't too bad and a few experiments suggested that the two could be married without *too* many compromises. The problem comes with the Peco turnouts...

Ah! I was wondering where Wayne had gone... All looks very promising indeed. Might make me think again about the soldering except that I personally still have the issue with continental flanges. It seems they will run on code 40 with no chairs but it's tight. Still this is a problem specific to me and hopefully Wayne's latest developments will be just what's needed to get the range fully off the ground. The easier tie-bar solution has to be the best news. Still wondering how he is managing to do all that and still reduce his prices though...

Things having moved on here, I now agree with Cav. The FiNetrax looks very good but there are still constraints with turnout geometry. I've got my head round soldered turnouts now and find it easier than the FiNetrax ones. Will be interesting to see what the latest improvements to the system bring. FB rail is another need here, partly because French railways largely use it (but also some bullhead, which bizarrely they refer to as "double-mushroom" rail...) and partly because some of the flanges on continental models are still coarser than over here, much to my surprise. So I will be going the FB soldered route from now on. It's a difficult decision - as others have said, Wayne's system isn't yet quite at the stage where it makes possible the full range of track that people bothered enough by such things to consider buying it would probably want. I do hope he gets there with it, though.

Thanks Mike - yes, I think they would be the answer. Sooner or later I'm going to have to get my head round the matter getting such things to work! Ian

Good idea - hadn't thought of that, which is daft as I'm currently using it to plot track plans... Thanks Cav, but I'm reasonably O.K. with it. Ian

Precisely why I had a go at substituting it for a plain rail one. It can be done - soldering the frog in situ without melting the sleepers; actually little more difficult than fixing the cast one properly flat, attaching feed wire etc. I think it does look better, even if mine was a bit rough and ready. Wing rails proved to be more of a problem - but it would help if the holes were pre-drilled like the rest, and there was a proper bending template. Ian

I've run a few more items through that turnout and none of them has a problem. There is a slight wobble but only if you provoke it. That may be different from hauling something through a full formation though. But I think the photo is deceptive - for example the check rails are in the position dictated by Wayne's chairs, and the frog was soldered in situ by tapering the rails and then sliding them through the pre-existing chairs. The position is exactly the same as the cast frog. The only difference is the wing rails, which I had to make by eye, but they are still pretty close to the cast frog. The r/h bends are perhaps a little too close to the end though room for improvement on that. As I said, the main aim of the exercise was to test viability, and see what difference it made to both the appearance and railcar flanges. On those terms it seems to work. However, there are other issues: as Cav says, it is perfectly possible to make 2mm-ish track - the question may be one of inclination. Nothing so far solves my problems of needing nine curved turnouts and two double slips - and it seems daft seriously to compromise other aspects of the design simply because of track availability limitations. No sign of Wayne producing those other elements yet - and curves, probably never. So the next question is, is it better to go down the copper-clad route to begin with, or simply to accept that track-making isn't everyone's cup of tea and spend the time doing what we prefer (in my case scenery and buildings)? The fact that it has taken me nearly a year to get round to making three may give the answer. I may go with some plain track where the stretches are long enough that the change of type is not repeatedly obvious. And it's also possible to improve Peco turnouts *somewhat* by cutting away the excess plastic around the toe/tie-bars. None of which is to knock Wayne's track - it look excellent, but until someone produces a large range of ready-to-run to that standard, I suspect many are still going to be put off. And this from someone who gave it a try in all seriousness... I found the following (from central France) while surfing around last evening ;-) Ian

Thanks for the advice. I know it's not perfect - I have no gauges or anything to work with (as yet) - and the turnout was somewhat damaged to begin with. The aim of the exercise was really to see if replacing the frog was viable - which I think it is. I'm still not convinced that the gains are worth the pain in this track business, though... Ian

Well, the conversation certainly prompted me to have another go... so I took the worst of the three turnouts and after an afternoon of fiddling, I made a replacement frog etc. I had to drill extra chair holes for the wing rails - quick it ain't. The Arnold railcar and a Farish four-wheeled van run sweetly through it. The hole was where the cast frog had to be removed...so ignore. Question: now that the wing rails are separate from the crossing, can the be bonded electrically to the blades, or does it still have to be the crossing? Might be easier to make all in one piece if starting from scratch. Ian

I'm sure you would, Cav. - and you're surely right about the Peco turnouts. I haven't given up yet, though those double slips are an imponderable, and Wayne doesn't seem to have added anything new to the range for some time now. Given (in the best possible sense) his system is a cottage-industry, maybe the product still needs to evolve, despite the careful development I know he did? It sounds as though integral chairs may be on the way... I am still concerned about the operational aspects - I haven't got the depth (of baseboard or pocket) for Tortoises or Cobalts everywhere. I have been pondering whether there is any way the sting can be taken out of SEEPs to make them viable - possibly by attaching thinner, springier operating wire to them, maybe mounting them on their side to do so. No practical experiments yet, though. Then there's the frog issue. I may order some more rail and try soldering up my own frog as a way round that one. I'm not totally convinced that the fixing of the cast frog is very secure either. But equally, having trawled the archives and not found much more than a lot of hot air ;-) maybe there is more mileage in improving Peco track than has yet been found. Or maybe there is simply nothing waiting to be found. I may have a fiddle round on that front too.

Hi Cav, I see I've got some catching up to do with your new thread... I agree with the sentiment entirely, but it's fine if you already have those skills. I know we all have to start somewhere/when but I my experience has so far shown me that it is going to take longer and cost more to acquire those skills to the precision needed in 2mm modelling than either my budget or desired timescale seems happy with. I should have taken the plunge years ago, then I would have that skill set now when I really need it. I haven't given up on FiNetrax yet, but having possibly written off £60 on turnouts that may not be useable, it is starting to mount up... The possible change of direction is entirely my own fault, but the fact is my Arnold railcar will not go through that cast frog and is only just happy with the plain track. I simply can't get excited enough about the micro-engineering side of this hobby to want to get into dismantling minute drive trains in order to re-wheel the thing. I notice that your new scheme is also small and contains only a few plain turnouts - maybe there's a reason for that? Whereas my current idea needs about 20 turnouts, many curved, and two double slips. Not sure whether I like track building enough to spend a long period of time and a lot of money building that! Although you're doing an admirable job challenging this precept, I have always found that techniques do not always transfer well between scales - working in 16mm NG requires things that you just don't need to do in 4mm, for example, and coming down to 2mm, I'm not sure that just scaling everything down is workable or necessary. I have built plenty of 16mm scale track and turnouts - but 2mm feels like too much of an issue just now. Hence wondering whether the fine scale track will work where it's *cosmetically* most needed. You have high-level skills and can cope, but it's nonetheless true that the small the models become, the more difficult some of the fine detail becomes - even if it's only because our eyesight doesn't change, and our fingers don't get smaller...

I'm wondering whether it would work to use the code 40 for sidings etc (always dependent on French wheel flanges of course) and then use Peco for flat-bottomed main line rail and turnouts. Undecided how that would look at present. I'm wondering what could be done to Peco turnouts to improve their appearance - other than cutting the finger-operating pip off of course...

Douglas, I have been thinking the same thing - and no further updates on the website either. I have built half a dozen lengths of straight track, which are fine, and have attempted three turnouts. The chairs aren't too much of a problem, but I have had problems with the switch blades and plates etc. I have my doubts that glue is going to be strong enough to hold these parts long-term, and I my attempts at soldering the blades accurately in place on the plates have been variable to say the least. You don't really get a second chance with parts that small. As yet, I'm uncertain whether I've managed to make a useable turnout, but have my doubts, even though they are visually very satisfying. I have not yet laid any track, and therefore don't know what the 'next stage' issues are - but I am also unsure about point operation. Wayne did advise me that I need to use slow-action motors, but all of those I have yet found require far more baseboard depth than I have available, not to mention the cost. I reluctantly considered wire-in-tube but there is still the polarity-switching issue. Personally, I'm facing something of a dilemma at present: my present plans are undergoing yet another revision, and the track issue is part of that. I have 'negotiated' a way into obtaining a larger space within the flat for my next layout. I really like the look of the code 40 track but am torn over whether to keep throwing what is amounting to quite a lot of money at potential failures. I'm not yet in a position to get one turnout fully installed to see what the score is. The plan was always going to be to build the track in advance of starting serious work, but I'm less sure that that's wise now. I enjoyed building the plain track, but the turnouts were not, if I'm honest, much fun, especially as the end results were indifferent. I accept that's largely down to my skill/lack of experience in track building. Not sure I want to build dozens of the things though! The complicating factor here is that I have returned from France (re-) fired up about French railways... There was/is plenty of chaired track over there on secondary lines but the Arnold railcar I have brought is not happy on code 40 track and the wheels are far too small to change. I guess Wayne may see this discussion, and it would be interesting to hear what he has to say. I'm loathe to give up on the track as it's excellent - but there are 'issues' that mean I haven't made as much progress as I would have liked. It would be good to hear how others are getting on, too. Ian

Quite right - it's a hobby after all. My enthusiasm for 16mm live steam suddenly departed about three years ago, after an intense six-year 'discovery' period. I wonder if those two are connected. Anyway, it came rushing back this year - and I had the same experience with N gauge some time ago. It always does, eventually, and variety is the spice of life.

Have just ordered a set - so we'll see how they go when they arrive. Thanks for your work on these for me.

You must have an amazing nose if you could smell that from Chesterfield 8-)

One of my earliest model railway experiences was to visit the home of a teacher of mine, who also happened to be a family friend. He was building a large TT gauge GWR model in his loft; by the time I saw it, it had already taken him nearly 15 years to build. Not many 'lifetime' projects like that these days... ;-) I suppose you have more incentive to get a move on if you have an exhibition deadline to meet.

You don't hang around, do you?!!!

Have you considered using mandolin strings? They come in finer gauges than guitar strings. I keep all my old ones!

Nice work. Interested in how you got the pivot to work - what did you use/how did you fix it to the arm/did you manage to get the back blind and the balance arm working?

In one piece, no probably not ;-) But I recently did about 10ft of it in A4 pieces. Yes, I know the joins are a risk - but I used a thin card, and so was able to butt the joins up closely enough that they really barely show. Good luck to you though, if your painting skills are up to it.

I'd use something like a Pritt stick. Goes on thin enough to avoid bubbles. Have you considered using a certain piece of software that allows you to view the streets in a given area? I have used that quite effectively a couple of times (whisper it quietly...)

Nice work on the signal. What are you going to use for the spectacle glasses? (Have never come up with a good solution for that one...)

Absolutely fine by me - certainly no wish here to steal Cavs' thunder. In fact he and I had discussed whether there was any appetite for such a discussion, so we were kind of testing the water. If there is, then let's get it going - elsewhere!

Interesting take on it - I can see your reasoning. Perhaps what is beginning to happen is the dawning of a realisation that has been driven by the improvement in manufactured standards. Maybe it has just taken time to seep into the collective consciousness. But that's perhaps all the more reason why the determined/curious few could drive standards forward now, if it's possible. That's how 4 and 7mm advanced.