Finescale vs standard OO track ?

wrote

I've used Peco code 75 for several years now without any significant problems. I'm currently running USA outline HO scale stock, but modern British OO-scale occupied much of the same trackwork before this.

The extra cost is minimal, probably no more than 10%, which unless your layout is significantly large, is barely worth worrying about.

Appearance wise I think it looks significantly better than code 100 track, but clearly not as good as track handbuilt to EM or PM standards.

John.

What John said. Just been watching Roger Epps' "Summer Hill" at Halifax and it tok me a while to work out while his Peco track looked a lot better than mine. Although you still won't mistake it for C&L or similar, it is a significant improvement on Code 100. I wish I'd used it....

Stuart.

Many thanks, John

wrote

There seems to be a myth that fine profile track is more prone to derailing than coarse stuff. I dispute this. If nothing else, fine profiles for wheels and track mean that the gaps at point frogs and checkrails are appreciably smaller, so the flange has less wandering to do. It's loose and uneven running that promotes jumping rather than how much wheel is in contact with how much track. (If thick wheels on brute rail were a good thing, how come the 12"/foot people don't use it?) Thick wheelbarrow wheels like the old Triang ones are just looking for things to clout, apart from the poor coning profile at the rail radius. Thin neatly-turned wheels to a good standard profile like RP25 are their own reward for smoothness. Much derailing can also be traced to ancillary problems such as poor joints, back-to-back measurements being out (all finescalers use b2b gauges the whole time: much 00 is fit-and-forget at the factory and often significantly in error) or insufficient adhesive weight. Compensation at the wheels on locos and stock also helps a lot, though not always feasible with RTR items. Running is a totality, not just one factor or one proprietary product. (This from seeing a fair bit of unimpressive and jerky operation at Scaleforum last week: the P4 boys make much of being the One True Faith in 4mm because of their fine tolerances but don't always follow up their words with matching deeds IMO).

Code 75 looks appreciably better than code 100, as well as the chair/sleeper mouldings being often of better appearance. I use C&L Finescale sleeper bases for my EM track, and Peco looks just as good. Start as you mean to go on, as being dissatisfied and ripping it all up later means you get one result for two lots of money. Hence in my case embracing EM before I started building anything... it was going to be cheap and cheerful coarse 00 when I started.

Tony Clarke

In message , Tony Clarke writes

Probably because they would cost more due to the excess material to make them.

significantly

I've used Peco Code 75 without any major problems. The Code 75 is a little prone to slipping out of the sleepers if you try to curve it too sharply. All that needs to be done to some stock is to check the back-to-back gauge. If it's too narrow, then a common problem is shorting out of the back of the flange against the open point blade.

I've also built a 00 layout using C&L bits and more than once, the gauge has been queried - many people think it's EM!!

BTW, I'm just about to pack the above layout (Tontine Street Goods) in the car and take it to Manchester Exhibition.........

Cheers, Mick