Junctionmad

Self inflicted angst. Sure that's the definition of a railway modeller

Ah, hell, it's bad enough having to sneak into my local model shop so my normal friends don't see me. Now I have go up to the counter and " I want buy a packet of the "other" track, wink ,wink, not for me of course , you see I have this friend........" .

Omg , and to think all your posts on 00 track are now wasted.

My goodness , all this excitement, this thread will have a coronary when the actual track appears.

Clearly peco streamline H0 is " factually " wrong for 00 gauge. That's not an opinion . The issue of course is what's actually " right" for 00 since you cannot create proper 4mm to 1 foot track in 00. Hence every subsequent track is a compromise and has degrees of " wrongness ". The 00 modeller has a choice of everything from " wrong " ie HO track all the way upto " sorta wrong " track like C&L etc, depending on how important track is to them.

isn't there a grammatical name to my error ? opps the sin of pleonasm !!!

its head is bigger then its bottom !

why , when we discuss this , is there always someone that seeks to turn this into an adversarial slagging match ....

I never saw existing peco streamline as 00 track. It's plainly H0 track which happens to have a common gauge with 00 track. . In that respects it's the same as Tillig. The new track is clearly 00 but in fact is compatible with H0 track by way of s common gauge

Martin , I dont think theres a 00 modeller alive that doesnt realise that the existing PECO track is a compromise, one that they are often happy too live with, but they recognise the compromise all the same, the 00 Bullhead is just a little reduction in that compromise that may suit some modellers, and be irrelevant to many. I see no great marketing dilemma dave

I'd personally be very surprised if PECO changed the geometry of the new bullhead away from its existing HO standard.

I think the issue will boil down to points , will PECO just be a rehash of the existing designs with the new timbering , or will they move more upmarket. Id be surprised if they just duplicated the existing code 75 HO range , people are not going to mix the systems in visible scenic areas anyway ​DCC have stated the points will one close to finescale 00 , however that remains to be seen ​The web structure on the PECO is the same as DCC and lends itself to forming nice curves, unlike the exactoscale fasttrack bases that require major web surgery to get around corners I think the market will be quite niche and I suspect PECO are acting as much strategically as economically , there will be many OO modellers, that doesnt really care that much about track ( and dont care about signalling etc etc ) happily continue with HO code 75 , in fact in my club, there are many fans of code 100.

One would reasonably assume that any purchaser would be entirely cognisant of the various developments in track from both peco and dcc concepts and will not be affected one way or the other by comments from people like me. Equally as you say C&L have products across a gamut of railway modelling and are not dependant on any single strategy. As a purchaser of Petes fine products , I wish him well in his recovery and his sale

Look an extremely useful track to me, I suspect in cost grounds it will be considerably cheaper then C&L fastTrack which will give Pete some grief . OO Modellers will be spoiled for choice , now lets see who gets the points out first

Lots of rails predating CWR were laid with staggered fishplates in Ireland.

Thanks , I was wondering if I could avoid buying a Cameo and do everything with a laser, dave

I stand to be corrected on this, but Exactoscale ltd no longer exists ( see http://www.exactoscale.co.uk) , I understand c&l bought all the rights

John , given that Exactoscale no longer effectively exists , I have refrained from calling such products Exactoscale , even though I am aware of genisis. I referred to them as C&l fasttrack as essentially that what's it is , compared to the older c&l thin sleepered products and I compared the two primarily as its what I had to hand , it was in NiNi so a colour comparison was useful and the standard of chair and sleeper detail is similar. Dave

Hi newbie question, can lasers like this be used to cut abs sheet or plasticard, or is there a material that acts like plasticard but can be lasered. I'm looking at very thin materials like 20 thou etc Thanks Dave

I have not " forgotten " either C&Ls original thin plastic sleeper nor SMP I prefer the exactoscale plastic timbers for point construction as the Butanone dies not cause them to bend. , hence the interest in the thick fast track bases for plain track My own view is if DCCs plastic turnouts are obviously thin plastic then the points , especially large radius could be quite fragile

Yes , it's strange , for years there has been frothing about better 00 gauge track , in particular bull head track , now within almost one year , we have C&L new Exactoscale based 00 track , dcc concepts and PECO. c&l of course are not producing turnouts so DCC and PECO will be " it" , it now remains to be seen whether the 00 users will part with two to three times the cost of Peco current streamline . We live in interesting times.

I think this is a rather unfair pop at C&L. Pete has done great work and the self build track work enthusiast would be in the dark was it not for that company ( and its predecessors ) . I notice you make no reference to PECOs new track, which will undoubtably give everyone a run for their money !!

Hi Richard thanks for your comments, I mentioned that I was not following your soldering specifications, I was comparing it with what I do with NS. I specifically stated I wasn't following your recommendations. Im aware that the term i used i.e. silver solder was sloppy , I have some Solder Wire, 62/36/2, on order. and I will retest. As for the curvature, I acknowledged that its is very easy to lay curves, I put that down to the interlaced webbing , and commented that its better then exactoscale fasttrack base, which requires web cutting to work well However I still disagree with you rail inclination issues, I have laid a piece of the DCC track and I do notice gauge narrowing , that i put down to excessive inwards inclination. fair enough in 00 this is unlikely to be an issue given the typical slop that exists. I did find that careful pressure on the sleepers to ensure they are stick down , tends to help straighten the rail. but I remain cautious about the inclination issue. ( Im not sure what you are trying to achieve with that chair design ) I agree that in reality , users of this track will be those that only consider it with the associated paintwork. PS: I have the Safety Solder from Building Gauge 0 online , which is water based , and was mentioned on scalefourum as giving very good results on the DCC track

I think the excessive rail inclination of the DCC track warrants some investigation. I can see it leading to unexpected gauge narrowing , Im convinced it's s function of the chairs not holding the rail tightly enough. As for sleeper spacing it certainly looks far better the HO peco ? Firstly the rail is bullhead and is carried correctly with space above the sleepers. And secondly the more 00 track is closer to 4mm /foot the better even if we can do nothing about the gauge.