New Layout

I agree with both you and Guy. Compromise is the key element which makes all things possible. There is no way a functional railway can exist in a house (even as big as ours) without using over tight curves i.e. max at 1M radius and down to Peco Medium for yatds etc. inevitably everything is truncated somewhat but is easily compensated for by the use of a little imaginative scenery.

The chaps who "Model" from a great height are also only producing an outline and have to resort to all manner of non proto typical techniques in order to produce a runner and are always obliged to resort to end of track convolutions with cassettes etc --- not at all to my taste but I respect their enthusiasm and am always willing to learn or even borrow some of their ideas. Having said that it is no fun for me to have a carusel in permanent plain view.

In my live steam days there seemed to be such snobbishness around that I almost painted my loco white with pansies all over it as a protest. As Alistair is aware there are still plenty of such irritants abroad in plenty of clubs and societies.

Ok, Alistair, I apologise. Didn't actually mean you. Sorry if you took it that way.

cheers, wolf k.

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

There's lots of grey area between the two.

Many modular exhibition layouts, even North American HO, use Code 100 track, I assume because it's more robust and cheaper to buy in quantity. The flex track may be Atlas or Peco (I don't usually look close enough to tell), but it seems Peco turnouts are preferred over Atlas as they simply look better.

Code 100 (0.1") scales out to 8.7" in HO, not far from the 8" rail height used in today's main line track construction.

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.

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

: 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?

Were you to qualify the above with some 'IMO's and 'for me's then would happily leave it there. In fact I insist that your statement requires such qualification and then I would have to agree with it. My opinion as to what constitutes a model railway and whats a Trainset, well I wouldnt use such terms as they imply that one is better than the other wether that implication is intended or not. Would change that statement to 'A model railway should be whatever the builder wants it to be within the bounds of their ability'.

Last year was looking at a big club layout that had recently been constructed and I thought it was the most uninspiring layout I had ever seen - seen more interesting basic trainsets than that. However it looked as though it had been constructed to finescale standards throughout.

Cheers, Simon

MartinS wrote: [...]

155 lb rail, 8" high, would be code 92 in HO, code 104 in OO. Code 100 scales to 7.6" in OO, representing rail around 148lb/yard. That's assuming that rail height correlates directly with weight, which is not exactly true.

cheers, wolf k.

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.

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?

: : 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.

:> 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.

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

: > wrote: : > : >

: > :> 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...

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

Precisely .....but not many would admit it !

Cheers, Simon

Peco does not make a scissors crossover in HO/OO scales.

Shinohara is available from Scale-Link Ltd.

Code 83, "DCC ready", is at Code 100 is at Code 70 is at (sorry for the very long URLs).