New Layout

Alistair Wright wrote:


Ok, Alistair, I apologise. Didn't actually mean you. Sorry if you took it that way.
cheers, wolf k.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My model railway will use the best possible technologies ... subject to available time, available money, and available or easily acquirable skills. All relative to what I want it to do.
Isn't that what we all do anyway?
Eric
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Exactly. As has been stated many times here: "It's your railway, do what you want with it." Many layouts are entirely fictional, and bear no relation to anything in the Real World.
--
Martin S.

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

There's lots of grey area between the two.
--
Martin S.

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

It's not a case of mixing the two concepts.
It's the personal and subjective definition of "best possible" that is problematic.
The jury will be out for a long time on this one :-)
MBQ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>
: It's the personal and subjective definition of : "best possible" that is problematic. : : The jury will be out for a long time on this one :-)
Like hell is it, the jury came back into the court room on the first public exhibition of Heckmonwick, the challenge was made, accepted and proved possible - if you want the "Best possible" then P4 is the way to go, if you want to 'play trains' then even code 500 RSJ's will do!
When building an all new model railway, why even consider Peco code 100 track when one can have code 75 track for much the same cost, why consider Peco track at all when/if you can (learn to) build your own scale track, why when you can build track, loco kits (or swap out wheel-sets) bother to model in unintentional 16.5mm narrow-gauge - aka "OO gauge" - when one can model in near-scale 18mm EM gauge or dead-scale 18.83 P4 gauge?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've got this garden railway. There is absolutely _no_ way I am going to hand-build over 500 yards of track, not to mention the points and crossings. And I have no intention of going to EM or P4, as by staying OO I can run HO stock on my layout, too. Sometimes I run both OO and HO at the same time, even in the same train. After all, it's my railway, and I'll run what I like. Anyone disagreeing with this can go and operate their own layout.
I started off using Peco and Hornby code 100 track, but now any new track and replacements are done in code 83, both Peco and Shinohara/Walthers. Also, it should be noted that Shinohara do a very respectable scissors crossover, which Peco don't.
--
Jane



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: <snip> : : I've got this garden railway. There is absolutely _no_ way I am going to : hand-build over 500 yards of track, not to mention the points and : crossings.
I'm not suggesting you do, if the track you chose works for you then great, I was replying to the notion of "best available". For "garden railways "best" is not the same as (lets call them) 'conventional' model railways built onto a base-board sited inside the house.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Could you perhaps comment on why the Shinohara scissors is better than the Peco. And where in the UK can I get Shinohara?
(I am in the planning phase of a station throat that needs two of them)
TIA
Eric
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Peco does not make a scissors crossover in HO/OO scales.
Shinohara is available from Scale-Link Ltd. http://www.scalelink.co.uk /
Code 83, "DCC ready", is at http://www.scalelink.co.uk/acatalog/Shinohara_Pointwork___HO__Code_83_DCC_ready.html Code 100 is at http://www.scalelink.co.uk/acatalog/Shinohara_Track___Pointwork__HO____Aiguillages.html Code 70 is at http://www.scalelink.co.uk/acatalog/Shinohara_Track___Pointwork___HO__Code_70.html
(sorry for the very long URLs).

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

I assume that a "scissors" crossing is the same as a "diamond" crossing? Peco 83 = SL-8364 ( seems to be the same number for insu and electro). Or-- are you talking about that great collection of points and a 30 crossing all built into that 1/2 metre of pointwork?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sailor wrote: [...]

It's what I prefer to call a double crossover - from right to left and left to right (from whichever end you look at it.) IOW, two crossovers in opposite directions superimposed on each other. In 16.5mm gauge a #8 double crossover would take up about 2ft. But two single crossovers end to end would take up about 4ft.
A #8 turnout has an effective radius of 110", according to John Armstrong's "Track Planning for Realistic Operation". Closure rail (between straight points and straight frog) has a radius of 67". Curved frogs were rarely used over here.
I would call a "diamond crossing" a place where two tracks cross. A scissors/double crossover thus includes a diamond crossing.
cheers, wolf k.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Perhaps, but the correct term for this is a scissors crossing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Christopher A. Lee wrote:

Ah, yes, in the UK. ;-)
cheers, wolf k.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I bought one of the Shinohara jobs, to save me half a lifetime of razor sawing and swearing. IMO it's not as well made as the Peco turnouts I usually buy and of course it lacks a self-centring mechanism. The box gives the impression of having been in a cupboard for 20 years (which it probably has, the price and level of demand combined with the unusual brand are unlikely to make this a no. 1 hot seller). It is essentially electrofrog, which is not a problem, and the checkrails look a tad clumsy, they are sections of standard rail, not even ground flat on the running rail side.
It seems to be serviceable, though. I would not pay the premium for Shinohara over Peco for slips, based on this example. Others' opinions of Shinohara would be welcome, of course.
I'll take some pictures when I get a minute and some decent light. Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk /
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:28:12 +1300, Just zis Guy, you know?

My main station needs a scissor crossover on a gentle curve with double slips on the station end. (to provide headshunts) I've laid it out in Peco Code 75 on the baseboard so I know it's do-able, but meanwhile there are temporary through tracks and a single turnout for the yard throat. It's been that way since about 2002. I'm probably safe from Peco bringing out a pre-made one when I finish it, but I'm still suffering from procrastination and a long list of other shorter and more immediately satisfying projects.

They are largely hand-made.

Some prototype check rails are made of standard rail.The first time I saw Peco turnouts I thought the representation of rail made check-rails was poor!

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail /

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

I think that one is generally accepted.

Time and cost constraints.

You're forgetting that not all of us model in scales that are that well catered for. Time and cost constraints again. They also apply to 4mm given the lead time that Ultrascale seem to (or used to) quote for replacement wheelsets.

Why would I want to do that when I could model in 2mm finescale if i wanted to.
MBQ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote: <snip>
:> cost, why consider Peco track at all when/if you :> can (learn to) build your own scale track, : : Time and cost constraints.
Time constraints affect all modelling, comes back to a point made way up, do you just want to open a collection of boxes, shake the contents onto the baseboards /track and be 'playing trains' within the hour... As for your (later, snipped) point about lead-times with suppliers, yes that can be a problem, how long ago did Bachmann announce their Cravens DMU or their LNER O4?!...
Regarding cost constraints, for most people, scratch/kit building their own track could actually provide a *cost saving*, certainly for any layout requiring more than a handful of points.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But I want to spend all the time available building Loco and rolling stock kits. So track is RTR and locos etc are mixture of RTR and kits. Scenery gets the odd look in as scratch. Am I a modeller or a trainset player from that description. Dont matter to me where am classified by anyone. I have my aims, or my philosophy, and am very happy in what I do. Once got stuck because wasnt sure if what was doing looked right to others - who never visit - the book got me through that, never looked back since.
Cheers, Simon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: > wrote: : > <snip> : > : > :> cost, why consider Peco track at all when/if you : > :> can (learn to) build your own scale track, : > : : > : Time and cost constraints. : > : > Time constraints affect all modelling, comes back to a point made : > way up, do you just want to open a collection of boxes, shake the : > contents onto the baseboards /track and be 'playing trains' : > within the hour... : : But I want to spend all the time available building Loco and rolling stock : kits. So track is RTR and locos etc are mixture of RTR and kits. Scenery : gets the odd look in as scratch. : Am I a modeller or a trainset player from that description.
You're a modeller, but not one that follows (all of) the 'finescale' disciplines, it's not an either-or issue, there is a hell of a lot of middle ground, some are happy with RTR Peco track but build (within the limitations of the 16.5mm gauge) finescale locos and stock never dirtying their hands with RTR stock, others will spend hours building finescale track to 18.83 standards, religiously following every prototypical spec' - some even using real bolts in the fishplates! - but be happy just re-wheeling RTR stock, still others will build both track and stock, some not even using kits and last but not least some will be happy just "opening boxes, shaking the content onto the baseboard and be 'playing trains' within the hour".
: Dont matter to : me where am classified by anyone. I have my aims, or my philosophy, and am : very happy in what I do.
THAT IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT, sorry for shouting but needs to be shouted from the roof-tops, if it works for you that is all that matter. OTOH I do hate the reverse-snobbery that rears it's ugly head in this group (not that you're an offender Simon) were explaining the route from 'trainset' to "Best Available" is seen as snobbery simply because it's not were that person is 'at' or what that person deems they are capable of achieving, taking as an affront to their egos.
Once got stuck because wasnt sure if what was doing : looked right to others - who never visit - the book got me through that, : never looked back since. :
Same here, when I first got into "P4" track all the articles, all the demonstrations, all the sales lists were banging on about "the Brook-Smith method" of track building, trouble with that is that setting one self up with the tools could have cost more than a complete good finescale loco kit would have (money was better spent there IMO...) so after a bit of thinking I realised that there was absolutely no reason why I shouldn't build by first P4 'layout' using copper-clad sleepers as used in EM gauge - no one outside of family and friends was likely to see the layout so no one was going to know beyond those I told...
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.