Finescale track



AutoCad is a johhny come lately programme.
CAD is Computer Aided Design, from the days of CAD/CAM (computer aided manufacturing) and CAE (computer aided engineering) somewhere I have a stack of cad/cam magazine, gawd knows where though.
--
estarriol



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I go back to early 1975. Remember [bl**dy CAD/CAM] before it became really usable. Yuk! These young weeny boppers obviously don't know what its all about :0)

Only too true. A walk down memory lane. Anyone remember Early Prestel and [lord help us] Micronet?
Cheers.
--
Roy


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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!
--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hi Paul,
> I'm sure Mr. Wynne will be reading, and may elucidate further!
Well I'm reading. Not sure about hallucidating! <g>
> Templot can be set to whatever sleeping spacings you like
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:
http://templot.info/files/index.php?action=view&view=entry&entryidQ
regards,
Martin. ---------- email: snipped-for-privacy@templot.com web: http://www.templot.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hi Ian,
> 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?
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: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/templot
regards,
Martin. ---------------------------------- email : snipped-for-privacy@templot.com web : http://www.templot.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Brilliant, thanks! I only replied to the OP as I was looking for the same answers.
I've seen your site & EM trackwork before, very impressive too, so I'll take the above mentioned book as a sound recommendation ... though it will be some time before I try building my own track as, along with DCC, it'll have to wait for the right amount of free time, space and money! :o/ In the meantime I can at least afford a book! :o)
While we're on the subject of trackwork ... is there any chance you could add some info. to your (EM trackwork) model rail pages, a 'how to' or 'step-by-step' on techniques/components used etc.? I'm sure alot of people would find it more useful and inspiring perhaps.
Loco
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
El Loco said the following on 23/01/2006 22:57:
> While we're on the subject of trackwork ... is there any chance you could

Thanks for your kind comments. I have been asked this several times, and I really must do something about it. The problem as usual is lack of time, and the fact that I am currently working on FSNG stuff.
I have made an executive decision (!) though to change the format of each gallery into more of a magazine article style. I have seen some other people's examples of this style, and I think it is the way to go, rather than a collection of (sometimes) captioned images. The EM trackwork has to be top of the list for conversion, by popularity, followed by my narrow gauge stuff (going by the webstats).
--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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 1s and a couple of locos, and over the last couple of months have been doing quite a bit of 'research' finding out the current state of the hobby, 'relearning' a lot of stuff that I'd almost forgotten, and beginning to think about constructing a layout.
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 16.5mm gauge track as I'm not really into the idea of modifying rolling stock and have seen some models using this gauge that look good to me, but from what I've been reading, modifying stock to EM might not be as difficult, time-consuming or expensive as I'd originally thought, and the more photos I see the more I think I can begin to appreciate the increased realism of the extra width. (Although I can dream, I'm afraid - for those who model in it - P4 is out of the question as far as I can see.) But I digress. Primarily (or at least initially in my considerations) I'm interested in the side-on 'look' of the track as this is how it will be seen on my layout for the most part. Hence my original request to see if anyone had any close-up photos of 'finescale' trackwork using different components/from different manufacturers etc. to help me make up my mind. After all, I don't want to splash out on a load of gear only to decide later it's not really what I wanted!
Anyway, that's me done for now!
Cheers
Matt Ots
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Much as I applaud the EM scale supporters for their efforts, I had one issue with the gauge that put me off - most RTR steam locomotives will need careful regauging to get them to work. The problem is that RTR steam locos, and in fact increasingly most stock too - have elements of their chassis (such as brake blocks and valve gear) set in line with the wheels at 16.5 mm gauge - unfortunately as the RTR stock has become finer detailed, they have become that bit harder to convert - I took one look at a Merchant Navy and decided I'd stick with 16.5mm gauge to save the problems of having to cut off and re-fix or replace all the chassis detail. That's why I decided on C&L 00 gauge - it looks much better than Peco, but allows me to run RTR locos and stock without so much fiddling. Although having said that, even some of Bachmann's vans have been a bit troublesome to get the B2B/WCG out to a workable gauge. In those cases thinner wheels that are more true to scale would have been a suitable solution - except of course for the extra cost of replacing the wheelsets, another factor which put me off the more accurate gauges - how much extra do I want to spend on vehicle? As I would like to go DCC too, I could easily double the cost of a RTR locomotive simply by adding a decent decoder and getting a better wheelset... And that's where and why I drew the line and stuck with 4 feet 1 and a half inch narrow gauge! ;-)
Ian J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ian J. wrote:

Certainly, the idea of having to start doing any serious modification work on the chassis of a loco - particularly with intricate valve gear as you say - does put me off, although I've read several different opinions on this subject - some saying that it's dead easy and doesn't require any specialist tools or new wheels, others saying its a bigger task. In the end I'm inevitably going for a compromise between something that looks as realistic and convincing as possible but without needing a degree in engineering to get there! While as I said I'm beginning to warm slightly to the idea of track building, I have to say I'm still rather confused when people start talking about 'back-to-back' measurements, and so on!
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you are reluctant to modify RTR locos but prepared to build your own track you can still achieve a very realistic and convincing model railway in OO. See here ...
www.nevard.com/modelrailway/combwich.htm
Loco
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
El Loco wrote:

Combwich is definitely one of those layouts which show off OO to its best. The work is so good that you have difficulty telling what gauge it is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Ruddy wrote:

Indeed! Combwich was one of the first layouts I discovered on the web when I started 'researching' things before Christmas. Similar in many ways to what I'm after - same sort of layout dimensions, similar setting, era, atmosphere, etc. to what I have in mind. The one drawback for me - if I'm taking it as inspiration - is the soldered pointwork.
My thoughts are developing currently towards using C&L track (hand-building the pointwork) because I find the appearance close-up so much more convincing from the few photos I've seen.
Still debating the EM/OO question though - I'm hearing two different things at the moment regarding the ease of conversion. However, having briefly examined the underside of my Bachmann 45xx there is clearly ample room within the existing valve gear spacing to expand the wheel gauge - in fact, the coupling rods actually taper in quite noticeably from the valve gear towards the wheels, almost as though the valve gear is built to EM gauge but the wheels to OO! Unless I'm reading it all wrong - quite possible given my lack of in-depth knowledge!
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Matt Ots said the following on 25/01/2006 00:39:

The valve gear is almost certainly made to the correct position for 4mm/ft scale. To make it work with OO narrow gauge, it has to be bent inwards, as you have seen. This refers back to my earlier comment that modern RTR looks almost as if it is made for correct gauge, but has to be released in narrow gauge to suit the mass market! I have certainly converted a couple by simply dropping in EM gauge wheelsets and adjusting the pickups outwards a bit.
Just another thing that I have never actually got to the bottom of ('cos it ain't really that important!) - is it OO or 00?
--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

Paul, it is 00. It fits into the sequence of being smaller than 0, which is smaller than 1, which is smaller than 2, etc. Similar to paint brushes. And of course 9 mm gauge trains started off being called 000.
--

Regards

John



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Nuttall wrote:

Oh no it isn't ;-)
It is definately OO as in letters. The OO Society has its website address with a double letter O as in
http://www.doubleogauge.com /
you won't get far typing 2 zero's in google.
Kevin Martin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:11:51 +1100, Kevin Martin

Oh yes it is :-)
I wouldn't take an internet URL as a definitive source. If you read the history of 00 gauge on the DOGA web site, you will see that the gauge is referred to with two zeros, including quotes from Messrs B-Lowke and Greenly who started the whole thing off.
http://www.doubleogauge.com/history/history.htm
Jim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Jim Guthrie" wrote

Whatever the correct terminology is, I've rarely heard of 'double oh' being referred to as 'double zero', so common sense dictates that it should be referred to as 'OO' and not '00'.
Same with 7mm scale which is generally referred to as 'oh gauge' although 'nought gauge' is not unknown.
John.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.