Finescale track

I was hoping someone with first hand experience of Marcway or/and OO SMP/C&L would have replied to this already!

I'm tempted to use Marcway + SMP. I don't know much about either other than a description & photos at ...

On 22/01/2006 19:14, El Loco said,

What, apart from "finescale OO" being an oxymoron? :-)

It could just be that no-one has any experience of the three brands mentioned. I believe Marcway points are soldered construction, so might look a bit odd with both C&L and SMP flexi-track, which has at least some semblance of chairs.

Personally, I handbuild all my track, so can't really comment any further, I'm afraid.

Well, yes I can! Don't be daunted by building your own pointwork. Buy a "point kit" from SMP (soldered, so a good way to start). Follow the instructions, and get a feel for how it all works. You will need some gauges from somewhere - the Double-O Gauge Association? Don't expect your first point to work, but if it does, well done! I would also suggest getting Iain Rice's book "A Pragmatic Guide to Building, Wiring and Laying PCB Track." His style of writing makes you wonder what you were worried about!

I hadn't replied to the original posting coz it asked for differences between brands, and I only have C&L.

I can say that it is a fairly straightforward set of components to put together. The only thing I wish I'd done to save later hassle was to use a coarser set of gauges - as I run RTR stock, the B2B/WCG almost always needs to be adjusted so it will run through the points (most RTR vehicles have too narrow gauging on the wheels - fine for Peco, next to useless for finer scale track - though that said, one of my recent Bachmann Mk1 coaches had an over wide gauging on one of the axles!).

C&L does use a compromise sleeper sizing and spacing - somewhere between HO and P4, rather than being one or the other.

I actually got my first point to work, though I found that the sleepers have a tendency to curl upwards if not fixed down very firmly (the suggestion of double-sided sticky tape isn't ideal ;), I think it would have been better to use impact adhesive (such as evo-stick make) to fix the point timbers down with, then let it cure for 24 hours before laying the rail on top of that.

Overall it takes me about 2-3 hours in total to make a point now, but initially it took half a day!

The end result looks much better than Peco, and if you use a program like Templot on your PC, you can get the basic template for almost any standard turnout of any curvature (though be careful with sleeper spacings as the standards that are in it aren't for C&L - you have to improvise to get the sleepers spacings to match those of the flexitrack!)

Ian J.

program like

Hmm, knowing the origins of the C&L range I would suggest that there is a problem in Templot. There are at least two 'standard' sleeper spacing for 60ft track panels, one with 24 sleepers and the other with 26, there was also a 45ft track panel with 18 sleepers - this equates to +/- 24 sleepers per 60ft of track IYSWIM.

HTH someone... :~)

On 22/01/2006 21:00, Ian J. said,

There is a reason for this - it is an attempt to make the visual appearance acceptable. If it used purely P4 spacings, then the track would look obviously narrow gauge. If it used HO spacings, it would like like, well, HO track. I think what I am trying to say is that the sleeper spacing used is in proportion to the actual gauge of 16.5mm, rather than any specific scale.

Another endorsement for making your own track!

Templot can be set to whatever sleeping spacings you like, so that the improvisation is in the software, not the building board. With a subject like this, I'm sure Mr. Wynne will be reading, and may elucidate further!

Hi Paul,

Well I'm reading. Not sure about hallucidating!

True. And rail length. And sleeper size. And every single one can be individually adjusted for both size and position, if you are so minded.

But for C&L you can download a Templot file containing templates already matching the C&L 00 gauge track and templates.

Screenshot and download from:

Martin.

---------- email: snipped-for-privacy@templot.com web:

I remember right, wasn't it me who brought up that issue with the compromised C&L spacing in the first place? ;-)

I am looking possibly to do a rather odd crossover for the layout at the moment, one with a straight section and a curved line through it. Is that possible with Templot? I haven't got it installed at the moment as my computer went through a reinstallation a month or so ago, and it hasn't been top priority (work has been pretty busy).

Ian J.

Hi Ian,

Yes.

Well, I say yes. I don't actually know what you mean.

Templot can produce virtually any prototypical design. If you are trying to do something non-prototypical it is probably still possible, but it can sometimes be tricky.

Are you sure you mean a crossover? Do you perhaps mean an irregular diamond-crossing? Called "irregular" when the two roads are of differing radii, e.g. one straight and one curved. Such diamond-crossings are common in double-junctions. They are possible in Templot now, although regular diamonds with the same radius in both roads are a lot easier. Irregular diamonds will be equally easy in the next Templot upgrade (free to existing users).

Why not discuss this further on the Templot email group?

See:

Martin.

---------------------------------- email : snipped-for-privacy@templot.com web :

Irregular diamond, that's it! I call them crossovers 'cause I'm not all that great with accurate terminology, sorry. 0.78.e is the version I think I have, any ideas when the next PUG will be released? If it has the irregular diamond capability, I'd certainly like to use it (I find the more detailed work in Templot not that easy...)

I stopped bothering with email groups ages ago, as I find them too many and too time consuming to keep up with as I have many other work and hobby aspects beyond model railways. However, once I have Templot reinstalled, I will give it a look again.

Ian J.

Hi Jerry,

All these settings, and several others, are available in Templot. They include the correct closing-up of the sleeper spacings towards the rail joints.

You can also create a custom setting for any rail length and set of spacings of your choice, or for long-welded cwr, or for staggered rail joints as in US (and some Irish) practice, or to match any flexi-track.

What is the "problem in Templot" which you are suggesting?

Templot is not connected in any way with C&L or its origins.

regards,

Martin.

---------------------------------- email : snipped-for-privacy@templot.com web :

Read the thread, I was replying to a remark made about Templot when used along side C&L components. I can't comment personally as you still don't seem to allow people to evaluate your product before parting with their money...

I wasn't suggesting any what so ever, quite the opposite in fact!

Hi Jerry,

As I explained, there is no problem in using Templot with C&L components.

So why did you?

And I'm not intending to, as there is no way to disable parts of Templot and still make a meaningful evaluation. Also, I do not have the resources to provide support for users who have not paid.

However, there are several hundred screenshots in the tutorials section on the Templot web site, and shortly there will be some animated video sequences showing Templot in use. In addition, if you are unsure whether Templot will meet your needs you can join the Templot email group and ask other users for their opinions. Everyone is welcome to join.

regards,

Martin.

---------- email: snipped-for-privacy@templot.com web:

Martin Wynne said the following on 23/01/2006 12:03:

Jerry - whilst it would be nice to have evaluation copies of Templot available, it would also be nice to have evaluation copies of Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, Pinnacle Studio 10, IBM Websphere...... all expensive bits of software backed by multinational companies, but you still have to buy on trust that it will do what you want. With Templot however, see below...

That is the best bet. There are a lot of people on there with a lot of combined knowledge. If your primary use for Templot is to do a particular track formation, then asking if it is possible will get you a response. These responses will often be from Martin, but just as often will be from people who have actually bought the software and are using it. Which other software package do you know of where you can discuss issues or queries with other users *and* the actual man who wrote it?

On a strictly MR theme, DecoderPro for one, but it's more men who wrote it.

MBQ

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com said the following on 23/01/2006 13:20:

It was really a rhetorical question :-)

But you knew you would get at least one smart arse answer ;-)

MBQ

d I'm not intending to, as there is no way to disable parts

I can think of two or three ways in which you would not be disabling the evaluation of design functions but would limit the end usability in an unregistered installation, either disable printing, saving and / or prevent the screen from showing full size (1:1) drawings in any given scale (this would stop people using the 'screen print' function to obtain a template).

I suspect that if you have more competition you would consider your "take it or leave it" attitude...

Hi Jerry,

There you go again -- making statements about Templot despite admitting that you know nothing about it.

The prime function of Templot is to print construction templates. How could a user evaluate that if printing was disabled?

It is so easy to create standard templates with a few clicks and adjustments that many users never need to save anything. How would their usability of Templot be restricted if saving was disabled?

How could a user evaluate the design features if they can't see the template full-screen? Anything too small to be usefully enlarged on printing would be too small to be meaningful on the screen.

I have considered all these points and others in great detail many times and I have reached the conclusion that a free demo version is not feasible.

Templot is my intellectual property and if you want to use it I'm afraid you just have to accept my licence terms for it. That's life. I believe those licence terms are entirely fair and reasonable, and the many Templot users worldwide would seem to agree.

But there are several alternatives available, some entirely free. Or you could write your own track design software. Your choice.

regards,

Martin.

---------------------------------- email : snipped-for-privacy@templot.com web :

Well, seeing that you don't allow evaluation....

I suspect most people want to see what the CAD aspect will do, printing out a template is not the issue, you could supply an A6 (or some other odd ball) turnout template for those who want to print a sample template.

disabled?

That is why I suggested restricting printing! Duh...

enlarged

Err they would not see it at 1:1, anything above or below would be fine, anyway, many CAD operators zoom in and out of their work so seeing the drawing on the screen at 1:1.6 (or what ever) scale is not going to cause many problems (other than to those who are trying to miss use the software evaluation copy. I don't see that it would be a problem as the CAD aspect is what people will be evaluating after all, surely?...

I suspect that it not in your interests more likely, after all, once you have someone's money and they can't do what they want it's not really your fault it is.....

life.

Yes, and so is criticism, even when it is based on ignorance of the product due to your own actions!

OTOH they could just be making the best of a bad job, or perhaps they don't really know anything about track and are taking what you say as the gospel truth, the like of myself will never really know what the truth is...

Or just use one of the many free CAD programmes and all that - after all, 45 quid will buy a lot of track components, even from the likes of Exactoscale...

Well, after thinking I wasn't going to get a reply the thread seems to have gone off on something of a tangent!!

I realise I ought to have introduced myself and given some background to my original query since many of you seem to be 'regulars' on this newsgroup and may be wondering who this newcomer is!

I've just begun to get back into railway modelling in the last couple of months after almost 15 years of absence since my teenage years. Back then I was fairly serious about the hobby although I never really ventured beyond the RTR coarse-scale stuff (OO gauge). Then other things took priority and I didn't really give much thought to modelling again, until very recently.

I don't know what triggered off my resurgence of interest but in December I succumbed to purchasing a few Bachmann Mk

I've reached the stage of having the baseboards built and in place and a reasonably to-scale track plan drawn up in Adobe Illustrator (and roughly marked out on the baseboards). I've got some ideas about setting and period (Western region(ish), possibly S&D, late 50s steam. OK, it's still a bit of a mixing pot at the moment!)

Anyway, to bring things back on track (pun intended!) - back in my teenage modelling phase I remember being blown away by some of the photos I saw in Model Railway Journal of Martyn Welch's 7mm finescale 'Hursley' - it was quite unlike anything else I'd ever seen in the other model railway magazines I read because I found myself needing to look very closely to tell whether it was a model or the real thing!! Coming back into the hobby now, I realise that for me (and I realise it is a matter of personal preference in the end) some sort of 'finescale' approach is essential to bring that element of realism that I'm after. And the first real challenge is going to be the track!

I toyed briefly with the idea of using Peco Code 75 "Finescale" track but soon decided that this just doesn't have the level of realism I'm after. Then, until a week or so ago I was pretty much set on the idea of using SMP Scaleway flexi-track with Marcway pointwork, but after further consideration and comparisons have begun to wonder about the visual realism of soldered trackwork. I've seen photos of various different types of track and references to SMP and C&L etc. but was slightly confused about which was which and so on - and ultimately wanted to make a decision based on what, to me, looks right. (I emphasise the 'to me' part of that last sentence because I've been trawling through some past threads from this group relating to the issue of scale, accuracy, gauge, etc, and to be honest some of it well and truly puts me off the whole business!)

Even since my previous post, I've now begun to wonder about the possibility of hand-building all the track for my layout, if it is worth the extra effort in improving the level of realism, despite being scared witless at the idea!

To add to the mix - I was originally going to stick to

Anyway, that's me done for now!

Cheers

Matt Ots