NFWEM57

Martin, thank you for the link. Have checked the specification and although the correct height, the head and base are too wide, 22% and 11% respectively. I'll see what the postman brings over the next few days as I have two rail orders in, EMGS Code 83 and PECO IL-115 Code 82. Thank you once again.

I hope I can get some at a reasonable price and which is to scale..!..!

I think I have already worked out I will need to manufacture some gauges for FB rail whether 82 or 83 variant. DCC Concepts do not make gauges for EM/P4 FB anymore. So, some lathe work and some milling work to undertake for a set of code 82 roller and 3 point gauges. Norman Solomon had a set of adjustable roller gauges on the recent Missenden Abbey track building course I attended. That might be the best approach.

You learn something every day..! The mystery on why societies sell code 83 continues..!

PECO Code 83 has arrived and is, as previously indicated, far too small width wise but a 1/1000 (0.02mm) thicker at the base. Hopefully the PECO Code 82 I have discovered and purchased is what it says on the packet and my immediate and future needs will be resolved. If not, I will be after a piece of C&L Code 82 to assess/measure. I can only assume the Code 83 is useful for 3rd rail applications which is why the societies stock it. Otherwise code 83 would appear to be of no use at all for finescale UK track building..!

Have ordered Exactoscale concrete track base and Code 83 rail from the EMGS, Code 82 rail from PECO. The code 82 will fit the C&L and PECO baseplates, the code 83 is for the plain concrete track. Until I get the samples, the difference in size between the various Code 82 and Code 83 products currently available is unknown. If the available FB rail is seriously undersize, as is indicated on various internet articles and links, then the whole idea may be a non starter. Little point modelling FB if the rail head of the only available rail is 15% or more undersize with all the implications that has on using standard gauges and the few available components; it is the HO/OO issue all over again. I moved to EM to minimise the undersize gauge issue so to have to use seriously undersize rail for FB sort of defeats the object..! And of course Code 82 no longer available from PECO, I think I managed to find a store which had some remaining stock; unless it is marked Code 82 but is actually Code 83 in the bag as some have previously discovered. Not sure on C&L Code 82 dimensions and no real way of finding out unless a sample is purchased. I'll post my findings.

I have ordered the base plate components that are are available from C&L and PECO (not all are shown when searching their website) along with some FB rail. I'll try my hand at a FB B6 and use it on a revamp of my test track. Good thread on Scale Four on making switch blades, crossings, check and wing rails. https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7455 Thank you for all the advice. I will upload my attempt in a few weeks time, have a few Hornby upgrades for the eBay Christmas period to get out of the way first.

I have ordered the PECO Pandrol and Slide Baseplates, the C&L Baseplates, some FB rail and will see what can be made. There is a good thread on the Scale Four forum describing how to make the switch blades, crossings and wing/check rails https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7455 I'll try my hand at a B6 for my test track.

Thank you for sharing your experience. Reading through the 5th edition of British Railway Track - Design, Construction and Maintenance I noted that modern turnouts do not incline track 1:20 but keep it upright thus simplifying matters. But the plaining of switch rails is a bit more involved.. The main sticking point is the chairs! Why is all this so difficult and seemingly controversial?

Hi , thanks for the comments and I must stress, I take nothing away from those giants who have worked hard to improve track building up to the present. However, I was surprised at the lack of availability of FB components. Wayne Kinney (British Finescale) )has sold N gauge FB turnouts with concrete bases for years. Wayne did all the research and produced a viable product. Not sure stick with BH because that is all that is available in 4mm is quite the right answer, its sounds awfully like giving up. In addition, not quite sure my requirement is famine to feast, it will be a journey and you have to start somewhere. Research will be first and that has already started. FB has been around for 60 plus years, BH much longer at 100 plus years , but are we really saying we will have to wait another 40 year before we get FB solutions to 4mm scale track building? What about the youngsters interested in modern finescale track building now? This is not a criticism on what has gone before, it is a suggestion that we need to up our game to provide for future modeller's. Regards, Patrick

Thank you for the very comprehensive reply. Alas, the issue remains the same. I have read the MMRS papers which, although very interesting, concern plain track only. I might acquire a packet of the PECO sleepers and clips but they look a little crude looking at the image. The 3D printed versions using TEMPLPOT look to have a very thick base, and in any case are BH only. British Finscale have 3D printed easy build track bases for FB rail but, alas, only in N gauge. What I require is the same easy construction method for FB that is available for BH. It looks like it will be a bit of a battle but nothing is impossible. Bit more research on the prototype required and then see what can be obtained or manufactured. The 5th edition BR Track DC&M does have a lot of information and my need for a switched diamond crossing has been simplified as the FB equivalent is now the much simpler swing nose crossing. I shall persevere..! Patrick

Hi Wayne, thank you for the offer. I will email when I get back from sunny cornwall later today. IT limited at present.

Thank you for your reply. I am not alone then..!

Hi Martin, Thank you for the reply. Well, I have many years of software experience, but mainly SQL and other more obscure applications - but the baseline skill set is there. On track, little knowledge aside from what I am picking up now. So, not a good starting point but who knows. In addition, I am not far behind you and picking up my first winter fuel payment this year...! Perhaps we need a Templot that does both so that your legacy carries on and FB is added; one program for both although I know it will require a 'youngster' to carry it forward. But as you say, FB might be a minefield, but wasn't BH given all the variation..?! I'll have a think about the software development side. Regards, Patrick

And therein lies a problem as having made my first scratch build crossover in bullhead, I wanted to do the same in FB. No parts available..! No equivalents of timbers or chairs for FB with concrete save for some out of stock chairs from the EMGS. The only FB turnouts with concrete sleepers I have seen are those made by British Finescale for N gauge. Plain track is available from the EMGS . The 3d printing approach is fine if you need a lot of turnouts but I only need 2 crossovers and 4 crossings in FB with concrete timbers so outlay for 3D printers well exceeds getting a return on investment. Given that most modern themed layouts should be using FB with concrete I am surprised there is no availability of parts. Started another thread on this as I do need to make FB turnouts with concrete 'timbers'..! And as simply as made the BH versions..!

Hi Ian, Thank you for the reply and information. The era's are 5 to 7 and 9 of the GWML in Somerset specifically early 1960s to mid 1980s and a jump to the current period, 2015 onwards (with modern traction and rail charter mixed in). A broader McKinley approach on a much simpler layout. Looking at archive images of the area in question the BH plain track on the mainline was replaced by FB around 1980 although other parts of the network switched over earlier. Remaining with BH turnouts on the mainline is an option but it would be better if the mainline element had FB. I have already decided that mainline signalling will be colour light with motorised semaphore for the branch lines and all turnouts powered to eliminate the point rod and signal cable modelling burden. I find it difficult to believe that in this day and age the only solution is bullhead for turnouts..! Ah well, nothing ventured nothing gained. I will read the first few chapters of the 5th edition and see what can be done, the book is reasonably well illustrated. I will upload progress periodically. Patrick

I recently attended the Autumn weekend Track Building course at Missenden Abbey, the last one to be tutored by Norman Solomon before he departs for pastures new. I successfully built a B9 crossover in EM gauge and am now looking to build a similar crossover in flat bottom rail as my intended layout wil have FB with concrete sleepers for the main line and BH and wooden sleepers for the branch Iines. And this is where the problems began...! I have discovered that, and please forgive my ignorance: There are basic FB turnout templates in Templot but no chair information. No C&L templates for FB There are no concrete 'timbers' or 'sleepers' for FB rail. EMGS may possible have the equivalent of S1 chairs but they are out of stock (Baseplate Clip & Bolt for FB Rail - pack 250) There are no plastic turnout chairs for FB rail that I could find although I imagine the slide chairs might well be similar. I have purchased a copy of British Railway Track - Design Construction and Maintenance 5th edition, which is mainly concerned with FB, to supplement my 3rd edition, which is mainly concerned with BH. I am hoping I have just not found the entrance to Aladdin's Cave where I will find all the parts required but that is probably wishful thinking. Of course the next generation of track builders may not know what Bullhead is as they will probably be building layouts for the modern era. N gauge are well catered for in this by British Finescales excellent all rail kits for FB turnouts with concrete sleepers. I think this is going to be an interesting voyage of discovery. However, I can't be the first to want to go down this route so any and all vice most welcome. Patrick

No sure if this thread will be updated as most of the images were lost in the great server crash. I have the sleeper coaches but the other coaches are, shall we say, problematic..! However, found the attached GWR publication when trawling the web. Facilities Guide May 2023.pdf

Yes, I have a bespoke 21 pin decoder board for my converted Lima C37s and C47s (and others) which includes a stay alive circuit as well as direction sensitive one function control of red running lights (Aux 1) and cab lights (Aux 2). Works very well for ESU decoders but wanted to see the effect of using a Hornby 7K decoder. I t will either work or it will not..! I have a complex electronics development and maintenance background.

Thank you, have one and will likely use it in anger in a weeks time on a track building course.!

Surely it's 'if it goes phuttt'...! Thank you. I had guessed as much seeing the low voltage large capacitors in the Hornby power pack and will not be using that approach..!

Thank you. As I said, only one way to find out..!

Thanks you for the response. Only one way to find out for sure..!

I have a question regarding the new Hornby 21 pin decoders. I have converted a number of Lima class 37s and 47s to 21 pin dcc and was going to use ESU decoders. As part of the conversion I have include a home design (and well tested) stay alive connected via the decoder socket. It works well with ESU decoders and with the older 8 pin TTS decoders (which obviously involved a bit of soldering to the chip). I wonder if the Hornby 21 pin decoders have connected the stay alive connections to the 21 pin decoder pins in accordance with the standard or just the on board socket? Has anybody tried thsi?

Wow, there's an echo..!😄