PECO and North American trackage.

I see that PECO are going to introduce HO scale North American trackage built to NMRA standards with correct tie size and spacing and spike details
for North America.
Does that mean that they're now going to introduce track that is built to OO standards, at least when it comes to sleeper spacing and reproduction of bullhead rail and chairs etc.?
-- Cheers Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Roger T." wrote

details
OO
Your guess is as good as mine, but I think it might be a mistake to move away from the Hornby-compatible code 100 series track systems for general HO/OO use. I can see some sense in producing a fine scale OO track but whether the British market alone is big enough to support this is questionable. You only need to check out the price of some of their minority trackage systems to see how costly such a range might be.
John.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

details
OO
That would equate to a narrow gauge track for 4mm scale, what would the point be, the 'Streamline' track system might not have the correct sleeper spacing or length but it / looks / in proportion - correct sleeper spacing looks wrong in OO gauge IMO. -- Jerry. Location - United Kingdom. In the first instance please reply to group, The quoted email address is a trash can for Spam only.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Unlikely since that market is pretty well covered already by C&L and Scaleway.

For anyone with an eye for proportion '00' looks wrong, period. But track of the correct gauge for the scale is readily available from Exactoscale, C&L, Scaleway and can even be built from 'Peco Individualay' components so we are all pretty well catered for. Keith
Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/ Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

to
of
sleeper
spacing
I have to say it would be nice to have correct scale sleeper spacings in a ready to run set of points etc. I have been looking at finescale track and the idea of having to construct 8 or 9 points is not an incentive, not with having to re-wheel locos and stock etc.
-- estarriol
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, in article
snipped-for-privacy@blueyonder.jeansnTshirt.co.uk "The shuffling Shambling Zombiefied corpse of estarriol" wrote:

If you look at Exactoscale's web site, they've got some new system that allegedly makes all this easy. Maybe I'll give it a shot when I have some free time.
Tim
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Illingworth snipped-for-privacy@bellhouse.org.uk Go not to Usenet for advice, for
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

a
and
with
Yes, both them and C&L offer complete point kits, but they are 22 to 25 each and I can buy Peco's for what 7-8 a time.
-- estarriol
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"The shuffling Shambling Zombiefied corpse of estarriol"
[ re scale 4mm Peco Streamline trackwork ] <snip>

But unless the mass market (ie. those who just want to lay some track and get running or those who aren't worried about the wrong sleeper spacing) decided to buy RTR 'correctly built' turnouts the price would not be much less than the above I suspect.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Depends on how much you value having turnouts that look and perform like the full size British ones or ones that represent no known full size turnouts.
You certainly don't need to buy kits for turnouts - just the rail, sleepers and chairs. Certainly a lot less than 22GBP more than likely a lot less than 7GB that you would pay for 'toy' turnouts.
The shuffling Shambling Zombiefied corpse of estarriol wrote:
snip

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"You certainly don't need to buy kits for turnouts - just the rail, sleepers and chairs. Certainly a lot less than 22GBP more than likely a lot less than 7GB that you would pay for 'toy' turnouts."
A while ago I worked out how much a typical turnout cost in materials using ply sleepers and C&L parts etc, and guess what? It was around 6-7 quid. I just saw the C&L turnout kits at the Thornbury show, and I think for your 22 quid you get a Vee and planed switch rails, so a lot of the hard work is already done for you, but surely the making is half the fun!!
--
Paul Boyd
http://www.pbhome.plus.com /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote...

using
I
22
Okay, me stupid- sorry for what is written below!! Hope some kind soul can help!
Just how difficult are these kits? (I have no prior experience in track construction at all and my soldering skills are particularly poor.) Are the different manufacturer's standards compatible? (e.g. can I mix and match Exactoscale with C&L ?, etc.) How difficult are locos. and stock to convert to P4 these days? (Diesel- era in particular.) Does RTR stock have to be compensated? (I don't really wish to compensate but I have heard many old stalwarts of both EM and P4 shrieking that I must!!) What basic tools and equipment will I require both for track construction and stock conversion (and where can I get them)?
Many thanks in advance. I have been seriously considering an attempt at P4 for a while now but consider twenty- odd quid a lot of brass to spend if I haven't got the basic ability to make a decent job of a turnout kit.
db.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'll have a go here! Firstly, I'm assuming from what you've written that you're currently running OO RTR, and I'll answer each point in turn, based on my own personal experience. I would also suggest that from the type of questions you are asking that a jump to P4 may be a bit much, and EM gauge may be a better first step. Please don't take offence at that - it is meant with the best intentions.

From that, I would suggest that first of all you brush up soldering skills. Brian Lewis' little "Soldering Handbook" is a good a place as any to start (http://www.finescale.org.uk and search for C1210) Next buy a copy of Iain Rice's book "A Pragmatic Guide to Building, Wiring and Laying PCB Track" from Wild Swan. This isn't necessarily finescale by any means, but shows you how to build pointwork relatively cheaply, and most importantly means you learn whether or not you can do it! Depending on how flush you're feeling whilst you're at the Wild Swan shop, a copy of "An Approach to Building Finscale Track in 4mm" by the same author (he likes his snappy titles!) is well worth getting. I have never bought a kit because it is much cheaper to buy the materials from the specialist societies.

Yup - no problem. I have done just that on my trackwork page http://www.pbhome.plus.com/galleries/Track/index.html (apologies - captions are still to come)

era
Phew - nothing like diving in at the deep end, eh? DEMU at http://web.ukonline.co.uk/demu/main.htm may be able to offer some help here.

For EM gauge, you don't need to compensate RTR stock. It is just OO but a bit wider and built to a consistent standard. As you say, the old stalwarts say for P4 you must compensate everything, but there are layouts successfully running converted RTR, which I guess speaks for itself. I model in EM gauge, so don't have personal experience of P4.

This tells me you aren't a member of the specialist societies. I would recommend you join the EM Gauge society http://www.emgs.org/ This caters for both EM and P4, but I am also a member of the Scalefour Society http://www.scalefour.org.uk/ which caters for S4. As far as I'm concerned, P4 and S4 are the same, but I'm sure the proponents of each are still arguing the toss about their own standard! Both sell the appropriate gauges, materials and give you lots of advise in the form of manuals. The EMGS in particular gives you (for your joining fee) a hefty manual about 2" thick!

It is a lot of money, and I really do think your best start is to make sure you have the ability with a cheap system. I've just thought of the SMP point kits, available from Mainly Trains at http://www.mainlytrains.com/ and search by the manufacturer Scaleway. Cheap and cheerful, they look awful, being copperclad sleepers, but they taught me the basics. Did I mention you should join the EMGS? Membership costs less than one point kit, and gives you an awful lot more value for money. Don't forget thay also cater for P4, so you get he best of both worlds.
Anyway, I hope this is of some help.
--
Paul Boyd
http://www.pbhome.plus.com /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I agree with all that Paul has said but would add that drop in wheel sets for many Diesel era locomotive are ceratinly available for EM standards and are available through the EMGS. The manual also includes a number of sheets showing conversion techniques.
I built my first turnout with a set of gauges, a file, a razor saw and a soldering iron. I used a C+L turnout (point) plan, sleepers and chairs but made the crossing V and blades from plain rail. C+L used to produce a single page guide to building a turnout (haven't checked if it is still availalble) which includes how to make a crossing V and the blades.
If you wanted to cut out some further expense when building the first trial turnout you could get away with only using a EM roller gauge rather than a the full set of gauges. I would not however suggest that you built trackwork for the layout without a full set of gauges.
wrote:
<Snip>

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The easiest way is take a RTR wagon, a pair of P4 wheelsets and fit them. (Spring the 00 ones out and the P4 ones in - simple!) Then lay a length of P4 plain track on a piece of board - after glueing a length of cork trackbed on it. Make the track 'snake' a bit along the board. Now try running your converted wagon on the track and see how it runs. For short wheelbase wagons you will probably get away without compensating as long as you weight the wagon up to scale weight. For bogie coaches as long as one bogie can articulate in all planes and the other can only articulate across the coach then you have, in effect, two short wheelbase vehicles and you probably won't need to compensate them.
Diesels are a bit like wagons and coaches - simple drop-in replacement wheelsets are available.
Trackwork is easier to build in P4 than 00.
Dirk Belcher wrote:

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

How can P4 be easier to build if you are working to tighter tolerances to OO? For coarse scale HO/OO track the tolerance is around 0.1mm, for P4 its 0.03mm. Unless you compensate most of your models in P4, you need track work which is very flat. Try the above test with super elevated track.
--
Terry Flynn

For HO scale track standards go to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<13 lines of requoted text snipped>

Sorry but I have to agree Mr Ganderton, it is because you are building to tighter tolerances which make it easier, the acetate jigs do all the work, it's either correct of not. There are just to many 'coarse' tolerances with OO - any one of which can be the cause of problems (especially if you are trying to run RTR stock with factory set 'back-to-backs'.

Many people, over the years, have proved that statement wrong. Just as some people said that anything but a small branch type station layout would not (and could not) work in P4 - until Hackmonwick (sp?) came along..... -- Jerry. Location - United Kingdom. In the first instance please reply to group, The quoted email address is a trash can for Spam only.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

to
its
with
I use similar jigs to the ones used to build P4 track. Thus it is easier for me to get it right because of the larger tolerance I work to. It is also easier to make HO/OO gauges within tolerance. You are right about RTR back to backs, especially for UK models. At the moment manufacturers are in a transition stage, moving from coarse scale to wheels suitable for Peco so called 'finescale' 75. However it is easier to correct and maintain HO/OO back to back compared to P4 because the tolerance again is larger. I can have a large range of wheels which will work perfectly on my finescale track, with minimal or no adjustment to most RTR finescale products I use.

some
These layouts you are using as examples must have trackwork much flatter then the average HO/00/EM layout. Its purely a function of flange depth. The deeper the flange, the rougher the track work can be. Easy to prove.
--
Terry Flynn

For HO scale track standards go to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Keith
Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/ Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Many thanks to all those of you who responded to my queries. An interesting discussion ensued and I will advise upon the fruits of my efforts in due course... whatever move I make!
db.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

--
Terry Flynn

For HO scale track standards go to
  Click to see the full signature.
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.