foggyjames

Brilliant - thank you Martin! I thought that was the issue at hand from the various previous posts on the subject, but forgive me if I say that it's pretty subtle to my eye, and I was genuinely unclear on what exactly about it was unprototypical. For me, it's not as simple as just not caring - stage one is to identify the inaccuracy, and stage two is to decide on whether or not I am happy with that compromise. Of course the harder it is for me to spot what's wrong in the first place, the more likely it is that I will decide that I will settle for the status quo. Then again, some things are hard to unsee, and at one point I didn't really notice that Code 100 wasn't "right"...! Thanks again, all, for your contributions. This is going to keep me entertained over the winter! cheers James

Thanks, Keith - good detail! Did my screen-grab from Everard Junction correctly identify the 'reverse curvature' issue with the Peco turnouts in a crossover configuration? I'm still trying to get my head round that! cheers James

Hi Martin, Thanks for taking my comments in good humour! I strongly suspect I will conform to your often-observed sequence in due course! I hadn't seen the 'origins' page before, and at a quick skim (I'm supposed to be working...!) it looks like it will fill in a number of the blanks I'm currently experiencing in terms of why certain things are a certain way. I have a lot of reading to do! Anyway, I think I'm sold on the idea of building my own turnouts. Part of me thinks it's the wrong side of the 'anorak line', but I don't think I'll ever be happy with the geometry if I go with the RTL option! cheers James

Hi Team! A little update, mostly Templot-related. Alongside planning trackwork, I've made some progress on the boards. Part of me really just wants to use Peco Bullhead, as, where it fits, it's close enough for my eyes, and it would save a load of time. I also feel inclined to reward Peco for (finally) making such a big improvement to their OO range. I am still struggling to see the difference (or, perhaps more to the point, which is right or wrong) with the 'Large' Bullhead turnouts in a crossover situation. The closest I've got so far was this particular shot I saw in an Everard Junction episode, where the reverse curvature did look a bit 'funny' (see attached image). Is this the issue at hand, that I'm seeing there? However...I've had a bit of a play with Templot, and I just don't think I would ever be happy with the alignment in the 'throat' (if I can call it that, when it's such a simple layout) using the Peco RTL kit - see attached image for a comparison of the geometry; Peco RTL in Anyrail, with a very quick stab at free-form geometry in Templot over the top. And if you don't do a small layout, with its limited trackwork, the right way...! Probably not the right place for this (and I do know that Martin will most likely read this, so do take it the right way!), but I've had to park my tinkering with Templot for the moment to make use of the last of the decent weather for other, more outdoor, projects - plenty of cold winter months ahead for playing with software tools and building track! So far, it strikes me as brilliant and frustrating in equal measure. It's clearly hugely powerful and a massive asset to the modelling community...but almost nothing works the way I'm expecting it to, and I'm left wondering how many hours of support and explanation could be saved with a UI redesign...? I got as far as the screenshot shows (with some help from the companion and videos), but got totally lost at the double slip (as you can see!), and the method of saving a "project" (which I think might not be the idea...but then how do you ensure that different segments will join up...?) seems strange. I'm sure a full read of the companion in due course will clarify a great deal, but that can wait a couple of months. Thanks again for all your help thus far. To be continued...! cheers James

Thanks for your further thoughts and encouragement, all! cheers James

Thanks Bernard. A good point about studying it for a lifetime! It comes back to question I suppose we all have to answer sooner or later, or "how close is close enough?". Thanks John. I think the issue I'm facing is that some of this just isn't intuitive to me. For example, I wouldn't have spotted the reverse curve issue with the Peco turnouts used in a crossover which Martin highlighted to me yesterday. I fully 'get' the benefits of flowing curves and not being restricted to the particular geometry of RTL pointwork, and the curve-straight-curve configurations it is likely to result in. It's a happy coincidence that for my plan (or more to the point my space constraints) I have to introduce a rather unprototypical 'kink' in the formation, which I think would go a long way to masking those limitations...but I have a hunch that Templot will allow me to do a better job, even so. I will look forward to learning how to use it, and seeing what I come up with! cheers James

Thanks Both! Thanks for the links, Martin. I will ponder some book shopping! Point taken John, and I think the time is fast approaching for me to dive into having a play with Templot-ising my AnyRail plan. My concern is that (rather like with my friend's views on interior design!), I'm slightly struggling to anticipate where the issues are going to come from, and I am concerned about garbage-in, garbage-out. In other words, does Templot encourage prototypical practice, or is it only as good as the (in my case limited and quite likely incorrect!) knowledge you apply to it? I must admit that even coming into this conversation I had no idea that there was so much to the subject. I suppose that's part of the issue with sectional track (albeit I was only planning to use sectional pointwork!) - it gives you a false impression of the prototype, if you've never observed it critically! cheers James

Thanks for your reply, and apologies for addressing you as Martyn earlier, Martin! I think I was picking up the 'y' from your surname, and thinking of one of my favourite musicians! I will very readily admit that I'm having to pore over a lot of these messages and do an awful lot of head scratching to understand the issues at hand, and I'm still not at all sure that I'm 'getting it'. That's not remotely a criticism of the patient advice I'm receiving, just a realisation of how little I know about this subject! Given that I'm struggling to spot what the issues are, I am wondering if my days of striving for more prototypical track geometry might be still some way off...? I found this page useful as a companion for the video (http://templot.com/companion/real_track.php), and this image in particular: I get that in the context of a junction, the V-crossing type needs to match the direction of travel of the track beyond it (at least I think that's the point!). In the context of crossovers, is the key point that reverse curves which directly butt up to each other are bad news, hence prototypical practice would be to do all of the rotation in each direction earlier in the turnout (nearer the blade end), and for there to be a straight section between the crossings (and that the curviform nature of the Peco points doesn't allow for that, at least not without inserting straight track between the two turnouts, and greatly exaggerating the six-foot in the process)? As a follow-up to that, there is clearly a 'right-left' shimmy on the turnout curve (at least I think it's the turnout curve - I'm still a bit lost there, too!) on the 'Regular' V-crossing illustration above. Is there a short straight section through the crossing which makes it OK, or is it simply that the radii involved are sufficiently relaxed that it's just not an issue (whereas the steeper Peco turnout angles are)? Presumably (space allowing) a better arrangement for that upper diagram would be for the turnout to be located off to the left somewhere (or perhaps a much longer turnout could be used), avoiding the need for the reverse curve? Visually, at least, constant-radius curves look more natural, and I presume they also make for better running (on the prototype!). Eventually I suppose that space constrains the prototype, too, though, and some compromise is needed! Although my proposed crossover arrangement towards the buffer-end of the station probably wouldn't be horrible even with the Peco Bullhead (large) turnouts, and the difference (compared with, say, B-7s) somewhat marginal, I am thinking that I might be able make the 'throat' end look considerably better with completely custom pointwork than the current plan (featuring more large Peco turnouts and a Peco double slip, if that ever arrives in the BH range!). I will have a go at laying that out in Templot, and factor the advantages of that custom geometry into my C&L vs Peco debate. I have to try to hide a wall-induced 'kink' in the layout (at a point where the prototype is nominally straight), and I think this is an area where smoothing those curves out (compared with the fixed geometry of the Peco turnouts and double-slip) might really help pull off that particular illusion (or at least lessen the compromise). I am happy to pointed towards a book, rather than to persist in asking elementary questions, by the way. I'm sure this happens a lot, and the same points are regurgitated, much to the frustration of the regular contributors! cheers James

Many thanks for the detailed reply, Martyn! This is still quite a baffling subject for the beginner, I think. I've done a fair bit of reading in the past hour or so (including this thread, which I found useful: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/146502-better-point-geometry-for-oo-gauge-layouts/), and think I have a bit more clarity, as well as concluding that I could probably answer a lot of my questions myself with a good play with Templot (which I have now downloaded). Part of what I'm struggling with is what is actually wrong with the Peco geometry, and what the practical differences are. The overlays you kindly provided on the previous page show differences, but they're fairly subtle, on the face of it. So far, from my reading, it looks like the primary crime is that the Peco frog angle is too steep, which makes for an unnaturally abrupt rotation, but which allows the turnout to be compressed in length to fit in scale-length houses! Is that a fair comment? It strikes me that the difference must be relatively subtle (i.e. the extra space demand for a B-7 or B-8 over a Peco Large probably isn't that huge). This image (borrowed from the 4-sf website, at the risk of stating the obvious) appears to illustrate the frog angle point quite clearly (and yes, I know it's an A!): ...although I'm a little mystified about how the Peco turnout has ended up longer, in that case! Is it because the Peco points could be laid nose-to-noise to create a crossover with a scale six-foot, whereas the A-7 would require a short length of straight track between the two turnouts to achieve the same (hence the overall crossover length is actually longer)? The subject of interchangeability which you mentioned there came up in the thread I just linked to. It would have made more sense to me if there was a shallower frog angle as you step up from small-medium-large in the Peco range (and I'm not sure I see the value in being able to pair small- and large- radius turnouts in that way), but I appreciate that it is as it is! Presumably in that particular regard, the Large radius turnouts are actually worse than the Small ones, having an overly steep frog angle for their length? cheers James

Thanks both! You make a fair point, John - trying to match unprototypical dimensions would defeat the object of the exercise. I'm quite surprised by how close those overlays show them to be, though, even if they're odd combinations. I think the answer is probably going to be to try recreating my AnyRail plan in Templot, and to see what fits / looks right. Are there so many different sizes because they were made to fit the available space on the prototype? Are there particularly common / standard turnout sizes? At this point in time, I'm thinking primarily about the crossover at the end of my (terminus) station. I understand that the geometry will usually be bespoke at junctions, where both lines are likely to be curved to some extent, but were there standard sizes for situations like this? Or, to put it another way, is there anything wrong with just using a B6, if it fits (which I think it will, given that it's quite similar to the Peco Large), and looks remotely sensible? Does the letter-number terminology apply to fully-curved turnouts as well as those where the one of the roads is straight? The kits all seem to apply to the latter scenario, but I imagine that's because it's so hard to produce universal curved pointwork which is of any use. cheers James

At the risk of thoroughly enraging some of you, if I wanted to order a C&L kit which is *approximately* dimensionally similar to a Peco Bullhead large turnout (SL-U1188 or 1189), would I be right in saying than a B6 is probably my best bet...? cheers James

Thanks for your further thoughts, everyone! The Peco Bullhead turnout arrived on Saturday, and I'm again impressed (although do bear in mind that all my previous trackwork was Peco Code 100, so the bar was not set high...!). I have a busy few days ahead, but I will get an order in for some samples with C&L when I can, see how I get on with building a turnout kit, and compare notes. It's certainly been a very interesting learning process, and I'm somewhat itching to devise a track plan which would make more use of free-flowing pointwork. Perhaps I'll have another look at the 'throat' area (I use the term loosely!) of the Churston plan yet! cheers James

Thanks again to you all for your additional perspectives. To put the cat among the pigeons, my length of Peco Bullhead flexi turned up today (in less than 24 hours...and from the IoM!)...and I am impressed. I wasn't expecting to be. If anything, I think it might have the edge on the Legacy track in terms of general appearance. It's certainly a world away from regular Code 75. It has the same (vertically) 'offset' chairs as the Legacy track, which in this case seem to be giving one rail a cant (while the other looks to be perfectly upright). I've seem comment about the loose fit in the Legacy chairs in other threads - but with my samples, that's an issue with the Peco length rather than the Legacy. The proof of the pudding will be in the turnouts, I suspect. Rest assured that if I do end up taking the path of least resistance and going for Peco Bullhead this time around, this discussion has not been in vain - the thoughts are very much being stored for future use (whether that be near or distant). I expect that this will be the first of several layouts (hopefully to exist concurrently, rather than being skipped!). If I get chance, I might just dig out the diorama I built around the age of 10 and pop it in a thread - it's still in the loft! I at least have plans for the long main line layout I mentioned before, and a dabble in OO9 and N, and there's a chance that the lifted track beyond Churston (and hence I suspect all of it!) might get re-laid, if I can convince my Dad (for whom this layout is being built) to sacrifice the other three walls of the room in question, given that he is quite keen on a continuous run...! As a matter of interest, it seems like most of the track building discussion centres around 4mm scale. I'm conscious that C&L (and possibly others) also do components in 2mm and 7mm, but I presume there's elevated interest (at least that is my perception) in 4mm because of the "scale issues" which exist with OO? cheers James

Very helpful - thanks to you both! So, in summary, copper-clad is likely to be a little more stable (which may or may not be an issue), but care is required to avoid shorts? I am familiar with what a Megger might do to a stray slither of copper, and it sounds like a fun way to test that you've got everything cleanly isolated! cheers James

Thanks for your further thoughts, all! Dave John - that turnout looks great! Could you briefly outline the rationale for using the mix of construction materials? cheers James

Thanks, both! I hadn't seen the etched chairs before. With that detail issue out of the way, is there any further pro/con to plastic and glue over copper-clad and soldered constrution (beyond "adjustability" with solder)? I've just ordered some Peco Bullhead samples. I will get in touch with C&L in the coming days to get a length of flexi on the way, along with a turnout kit. cheers James

Thanks both - much appreciated! I was struggling to get a clear consensus on the received wisdom of plastic & chairs vs copper clad & soldering. That clears it up nicely (and fits with my assumptions)! I will pick up some Peco Bullhead samples and a length of C&L flexi plus a turnout kit, and compare notes! I already think I know the answer - that it will be C&L. At some point, you might just see a thread detailing my progress (or lack thereof!) with not-quite-Churston! cheers James

Thanks again for your further thoughts, all. Much as I'm not sure I want to admit to it in polite company, I think I will love making the point...! To return briefly to one of my original questions, what are the pros and code of copper-clad (etc) vs plastic? Cost? Is plastic inherently more realistic? Learning about Templot has certainly been a bit of an eye-opener! I was admiring Gordon's layout prior to posting this thread. For this particular layout, I think I would have very limited need for curved pointwork, although it might tidy up one end of the layout. I suppose there's nothing to stop me using a mixture of kit-build and free-form, depending on how sensitive it is. I'm not at the point of starting trackwork yet anyway, so there's time to ponder. Even if I don't use Templot for this layout, I am certainly interested in using it in the future. Interesting comment about flexi. The Legacy stuff definitely does have cant, and I was under the impression that at least the latest C&L product does too. I can't find any information about Peco Bullhead, but I suspect that doesn't! cheers James

Thanks for your further thoughts, all! Excuse the selective quoting! I am certainly going to have a good think about making my own track. I think I will pick up a single C&L kit as a starting point, and consider going full free-form if I take to that OK. The track plan doesn't "need" to be free of the restrictions of standard kits, but I don't doubt that it would be an improvement - as always, though, it's a matter of cost / benefit. I was very impressed with Gordon's thread, and his use of Templot on it. It certainly gives me some food for thought; for the future, if not for now. Interesting comment about flexitrack. I thought the length of Legacy I got looked amazing, but I'm only a beginner! I was assuming that, having chairs, it would look better than soldered track. Or are you talking about a plastic option, either using track base (is that any better than flexi?), or gluing plastic chairs to plastic sleepers? I was assuming that flexi was a no-brainer for plain track, but the best route ahead (mainly plastic and chairs vs copper-clad and soldering) became a bit more debatable once you start looking at pointwork. But, as I'm sure you're very well aware, I'm still trying to navigate the received wisdom on the topic! Thanks again, all. cheers James

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone! I fully appreciate that there's no 'magic' answer, and there's a compromise in every direction (principally, as far as I can see, accuracy vs construction time/ease vs stock compatibility with those still happy with 16.5mm)...and that it can be an emotive subject! For me, right now, I think the right answer is to stick with 16.5mm gauge (not to take anything away from the merits of EM and P4), but do the best I can outside of that one (major) compromise. I am aware that it's still not going to be "right", but given that until six months ago I was still planning (from a position of ignorance) to use Code 100 Setrack, I think even Peco's Bullhead (and the message I'm getting here is that it's better than their older efforts, but still not great) would be a big improvement. It's "how good is good enough for my tastes right now", isn't it? I possibly led you all up the garden path by mentioning the GWR...Churston is simply a convenient and personally significant location, but I have stock from multiple eras and regions...and that probably tells you everything you need to know about where I am on the train-set-to-proper-prototypical-model scale! Some really useful information in your replies, thank you. I think you make a key ideological point, Martin, about whether I view the track as a critical part of "the model", or an accessory to it. I think that is a useful way of looking at the subject in the decision-making process. I suspect I'm going to end up comparing C&L with Peco's Bullhead, and my best course of action will be to buy a length of flextrack and a turnout from each range, and decide whether the faff (or should that be enjoyment?!) of building the C&L points (even if the hard parts are pre-made, if you're willing to pay) is worth the improvement in appearance. If I fall on the C&L side of the fence, the next decision will be whether to dig into my pockets to buy the pre-made components, or to buy jigs and get soldering! Again, cost/benefit, I guess. Very helpful, thank you, all. cheers James

Hi All, Long time no post...! Bit of an essay, but I've noticed from a number of other threads like this that context helps to influence the answers. I am planning a painfully stereotypical small GWR terminus layout (based on Churston, which I grew up very close to, with a little artistic licence...like the terminus part!), and have started thinking in earnest about track. I've tried pretty hard to avoid posting questions which will result in "use the damn search..." type responses, but I am finding research on this topic to be very hard work. Realism is important to me, but (as an illustration of where I'm at on that journey) I have only very recently recalled a conversation with an EM/P4 enthusiast at a Warley show a few years ago, and started looking critically at trackwork. And once you see it, you can't unsee it...! I am still firmly in RTR territory when it comes to stock (not least because I want my stock to be portable to friends' layouts), and whilst I buy the EM/P4 arguments and admire how good they look, it's not for me...at least not yet. To my eye (and at the risk of being poked in it by the militant end of the EM/P4 brigade!), the ~2mm gauge issue is easier to overlook than the height of Code 100, or the HO-derived sleepers of 'mainstream' track. To illustrate how new this is to me, only around 6 months ago I was thinking to myself "I should probably look into using whatever that finer Peco track is called...", and that led me down a wormhole of discovering C&L, etc. The other day I picked up my first ever(!) length of Peco Code 75, to compare it with my childhood stock of Code 100. While I was picking that up, I was offered a length of DCC Concepts' Legacy flextrack (which I hadn't heard of before). At the risk of stating the obvious, while the Code 100 looks like a bit of a joke next to the Code 75, the Legacy track is in another league (primarily in terms of the sleepers)...and there's no going back. My track plan is simple, and I was perfectly happy with the appearance (geometry-wise) using Peco's largest-radius Code 75 pointwork (plus double slip). Whilst reading about Templot and the possibilities of turnouts on flowing curves (and very much enjoying Gordon's amazing Eastwood Town thread) was both inspiring and eye-opening, I don't need that level of flexibility for this layout...although the thoughts have been firmly stored ready for the 30-40' straight run main line layout I dream of having the space for! So whilst I am resigned to the fact that I may be forced to build my own pointwork (and may even enjoy it!), I would happily use ready-built turnouts if they are available to match realistic flextrack. However, as far as I can see, the options there are very limited. So far I have looked at C&L, DCC Concepts' Legacy, SMP (Marcway), and Peco Bullhead. Frustratingly, most of the websites involved seem to be somewhere between lacking in info and appalling in design (I'm looking at you, Peco, although in fairness C&L's is probably the best in this regard)...and there are so many forum threads that although I have answered quite a few questions, I am struggling with signal/noise ratio for my specific questions. So, I have a few questions which I've been struggling to get decent answers to: 1) I have only tonight discovered Peco's Bullhead range, which looks far better than the flat-bottomed Code 75 (again, especially in terms of the sleepers). Although in theory they could have just changed the rail, it appears that this has been used as an excuse for a redesign of the sleepers, etc, and the result is something far better than the older flat-bottomed Code 75. Is that right? 2) How good is the Peco Bullhead, next to C&L, etc (with those slightly more exotic brands all seeming to be quite similar)? Is it truly comparable, or more or a halfway house? It is attractive to me, in that I could get everything I need off the shelf, but it needs to look "right enough", or I will forever regret cutting a corner. I will get a length of the flextrack as a test, but advance opinions would be appreciated! 3) The Peco Bullhead double slip (and a couple of other pieces) were due to ship in the autumn last year according to an August 2019 Peco press release, but they appear to have been delayed (until late summer this year, and possibly beyond, in the current circumstances!). Is that right? 4) If the Peco Bullhead proves to not scratch my recently-acquired track-OCD itch, it looks like I'm going to be building my pointwork...but also that there are levels to that! I feel like if I'm going to this trouble (and for a layout which is, ironically, more likely to examined up close than the 30-40' main line layout I would like to build eventually!), I would like chair detail, and sticking plastic chair pieces onto soldered track doesn't feel quite right. Is there any other advantage to soldered track (assuming that a (fixed-dimension?) plastic kit will fit my proposed track plan)? Is the main advantage of soldered trackwork complete freedom of design, while the plastic turnout kits are something of a halfway house? In other words, where does the snob value lie here? 5) DCC Concepts Legacy range - It would appear that there is no plastic-based, with-chairs option...although I saw references to it in various threads from several years ago. Still in the works? It also looks like you have to do all your own profiling for the frog and blades, etc. I'd rather not...! 6) SMP - They have a plastic option (presumably with moulded chairs?), but I'm struggling for detail, pictures, etc. Are you into filing the frog and blades again? 7) C&L - It looks like a winner for me, as there are off-the-shelf frog and blade components for turnouts of certain dimensions...correct? Am I right in saying that they are the only people to offer those? 8) Anything else I ought to know...? I know there's a lot there, and this is probably a really common set of questions, but I've spent most of the evening searching with only partial success, and I'm starting to lose the will to live! Thanks for your time. cheers James

I somehow missed Chris' video first time around. That's brilliant - exactly right! Mr Chapman - I may well take you up on that! It's not unusable - just not ideal for low-speed manoeuvring. It doesn't help that I don't have much track to play with yet, so was endlessly flicking from forwards to backwards! It would certainly work well doing laps of a circuit. cheers James

I wouldn't be surprised if the 45xx will go back to the future flat out in a straight line, never mind on a curve cheers James

Thanks both! No plans to run first radius - I've read that it's likely to cause trouble. May well have to go to second, though - space is tight. cheers James

Thanks, Kris! How tight is tight, in this context? I'm aiming to go no tighter than third-radius...possibly second, if I have to. cheers James