New Layout

"dan" wrote

Either will work perfectly satisfactorily with DCC, but you'll definitely get better running with live frog (Electrofrog) points.

Can't see any advantage in using code 100. 75 certainly looks better.

John.

: : Can't see any advantage in using code 100. 75 certainly looks better. :

There is only one item in the Code 100 range that merits use, the Three-way (symmetrical) point, much better to just work around any need for such a point...

What John said. Electrofrog is markedly better when using short wheelbase locos. You can get away with using the inbuilt contacts and no switches on the turnout motors, so a pair of insulating joiners is the only difference you notice when laying out. That said, switches are a better bet since weathering and age can make the track contact worse.

If I was starting again I'd probably scratchbuild the track but only because I'm not doing modern so the flat-bottom rail looks wrong and because I am already going to have to start scratchbuilding sections for unusual crossing angles and so on. I think it sounds scarier than it is. Guy

You need to ask yourself the questions: Am I building a model railway or just into playing trains? Am I in for the long haul or do I want/need instant gratification? If you really mean to build a railway then you will go for the best trackwork and will use prototypical formations - this means hand building your turnouts and using SMP or similar plastic based track everywhere else. This will take longer but you will never regret it. If on the other hand you just want to have an operational set-up and play trains then proprietary track will do the job far more quickly. All modern rolling stock (except possibly LIMA) will run happily on code 75. The question of insulated or live crossings is a no-brainer if you want reliable operation, even though a lot of modern stuff picks up on more wheels than the older stuff.

I came back into the hobby after a forty year gap. I asked these questions and taught myself to hand build copper clad track (using SMP kits to start with) and I have never regretted the decision. If you choose to build a layout based on an actual location you will not find it possible to do this using track out of boxes. Proprietary point work uses non-realistic crossing angles. You will also not make the strange mistakes you see everywhere on free-lance layouts. If they did it like 'that' on the real thing you cannot be wrong if you model it like 'that'.

Alistair W

: : Proprietary point work uses non-realistic crossing angles.

Yes they do, but it's done so that the point takes up less space, compare a (18.83 gauge) scale "B7" turnout plan from Exactoscale - a tad over 315mm long, and the Peco Code 75 plan for their 'OO gauge Long point' - a tad over 260mm long. Like all things in model railways, most people have to compromise... :~(

SNIP

Really good advice to see what it is you want from it, how much time/effort/money you are willing to commit. Suggest getting a copy of Historical Railway Modelling by David Jenkinson. Wont tell you how to do what you want but should get you thinking about it. Hes an excellent writer so tis a pleasure to read as well.

Cheers, Simon

: Suggest getting a copy of Historical Railway Modelling by David Jenkinson.

Hmm, IMO "...mainly DMUs and a few short loco hauled trains, era will be 80`s and / or 90`s..." is not by any stretch of the imagination 'Historical', bar a few recent developments, it's all but the current scene! :~)

Course it is, but thats irrelevent. The book is more about the types of decisions that need to be made for any era, scale, setting. He wont tell you wether to go for code 100 or code 75 but may help you decide if it matters to you which to use.

Cheers, Simon

But the difference is not quite that great because the Peco product is essentially 1:87 versus 1:17.2 of the 18.83 gauge.. (dare I say "Protofour) And that goes for sleeper width and spacing too.

David

: But the difference is not quite that great because : the Peco product is essentially 1:87 versus 1:17.2 : of the 18.83 gauge..

A valid comment, *if* one was talking about 3.5mm scale (HO) rolling stock, unfortunately both track gauge standards take the same 4mm (OO) rolling stock.

The book in question actually contains a lot of sound modelling advice relevant to any era.

MBQ

As Jerry has said it is recent era, I was thinking about doing a freelance layout but based on somewhere real, Selby, Bradford interchange, Garforth, Bingley etc. The problem with these locations is they dont have a stabling pint, Buxton was another idea but I think a few layouts are set on this location.

A idea I had was to use Peco Points and use them with the C & L Concrete sleapers on the Station and aproach, and use Peco Flexi ( wooden sleeper ) on the stabling point and goods depot. Will the two track systems work together ?

For the Peco flexi track would i need to cut the "sprus" between the sleepers and re space them ( going by other threads and yahoo groups archives etc the peco tracks sleepers are for HO gauge ) or is it a waist of time.

I will try get a copy of the book, on amazon its about £ 6.00

You are facing the realities of modelling. In my view to limit one's efforts to a particular site is very constraining on any form of operation. Even a small station with a runaround and a siding occupies an enormous amount of space leaving no where for the trains to go! There is a world of difference between the ambitions of say an S4 enthusiast ( I am a member) and someone looking to reproduce a working model of an operational railway. Both types of approach demand rationalisation. The use of peco track is perfectly acceptable and indeed their pointwork as it enables reasonable replication even if it is scaled down more than 1:72 in linear terms.

I wanted to model Coleford (Forest of Dean) but found that I would have needed the entire floor area of the house to make it operable. My interest is in the control and operation but I still demand some degree of authenticity from the RTR stuff I manage to acquire.

Don't be put off by rivet counters or colour shade freaks. Read up as much as you can and do your own thing -- if it doesn't pan out to your satisfaction then have another go! I find that as I age I pay great attention to not making things too permenant so that changes are easier to make.

Good luck to you and have a good modelling new year.

: >> Hmm, IMO "...mainly DMUs and a few short loco hauled trains, era : >> will be 80`s and / or 90`s..." is not by any stretch of the : >> imagination 'Historical', bar a few recent developments, it's all : >> but the current scene! :~) : >>

: > Course it is, but thats irrelevent. The book is more about the types of : > decisions that need to be made for any era, scale, setting. He wont tell : > you wether to go for code 100 or code 75 but may help you decide if it : > matters to you which to use. : >

: As Jerry has said it is recent era, I was thinking about doing a freelance : layout but based on somewhere real, Selby, Bradford interchange, Garforth, : Bingley etc. : The problem with these locations is they dont have a stabling pint, Buxton

Mines a Guinness! :~)

: was another idea but I think a few layouts are set on this location.

A stabling point only needs to be a siding or two, or do you really mean a depot, those can make a model in themselves.

: : A idea I had was to use Peco Points and use them with the C & L Concrete : sleapers on the Station and aproach, and use Peco Flexi ( wooden sleeper ) : on the stabling point and goods depot. Will the two track systems work : together ?

At your level of knowledge/experience I would *NOT* start mixing track, also the above will probably look crap as Peco (for visual reasons) have reduced the spacing of the sleepers to try and disguise the 'narrow-gauge' look of British 16.5mm gauge track - mix that with properly spaced sleepers and it just going to end in tears before bedtime, or someone learning how to build their own points!

: : For the Peco flexi track would i need to cut the "sprus" between the : sleepers and re space them ( going by other threads and yahoo groups : archives etc the peco tracks sleepers are for HO gauge ) or is it a waist of : time.

Don't even think about it on flexi track, not unless you want a flexi-mess, and have some 16.5 gauge track gauges lying around...

: : I will try get a copy of the book

As "Sailor" has said, don't attempt to model an exact location (not yet...), pick the best bits from many locations and then fit them all together, abiding by prototype practises, and you'll end up with a realistic model of some place that **could** have existed in real life.

: The book in question actually contains a lot of : sound modelling advice relevant to any era.

Then it's a rather inappropriately named book!

Definatley a Stabling point, 3 tracks ( or 4 with fueling / water / sanding ), no shed not too sure about having a fueling area though The legnth of the layout isnt too bad ( 16 foot ) the width is only 2 foot though,

I will do it all in Peco code 75 then, I dont have any Lima stock ( only a blue / Grey Hornby 101 ex lima )

Simon G

Sound modelling advice is sound modelling advice, regardless of era. Without taking the book off the shelf and opening it, A discussion of disguising sharp curves is just one topic that comes to mind.

If you want to criticise the book, I suggest you at least read it first.

MBQ

: > Then it's a rather inappropriately named book! : : Sound modelling advice is sound modelling advice, regardless of era.

Put it this way, how many would-be NR/TOC era modellers might be put off the books due to the impression given by the title, thinking that it relates to railway periods long past?...

That's what groups like this are for.

MBQ