PECO and North American trackage.

Errr, it's 1st May, not 1st April!

Reply to
Gregory Procter
Loading thread data ...

John,

I doubt you've built that many points, and I've been scratchbuilding track all my modelling life, starting with Peco spiked track kits in my teens in the 50s.

How long do you think it actually takes to make a point? At one point (excuse pun) in my modelling life, I was making N scale points using PCB sleepering at 45 minutes per point.

And what is your response to people who have asked earlier on in this thread on how to obtain accurate representations of UK trackwork at a reasonable cost - like our Shambling Zombified Friend? If your budget is tight, then you are going to have to scratch build in some form. That's how I started in my teens - I didn't have the money to invest in ready made pointwork and scratchbuilding track was the only way I could achieve the layout I wanted.

Since then, bar one 4mm scale layout in the 60s, I've scratchbuilt track in TT, N, S and S7 on all the layouts I've built and my experience was that the track construction was not a major factor in the time it took to complete the layouts - construction of rolling stock and structures taking by far the greater proportion of the time of construction.

Jim.

Reply to
Jim Guthrie

"Jim Guthrie" wrote

I built over 100 points alone for one O-gauge layout back in the 1970s and I got manufacture down to around 75 minutes each. These used balsa sleepers and cast chairs, and all of the crossing noses and blades were individually made - no kit parts at all. Since then I've produced many 4mm points (various gauges) and further 7mm stuff.

Anyway that's not the point (if you'll excuse the pun) there's far more useful things you can do with you time than repetitive jobs like that. The hobby's supposed to be fun, not a chore.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

individually

I think you are missing the turnout (sorry point !) John, someone was wanting scale 4mm - 1ft turnouts, until they become a commercial reality [1] the only way to get / scale / 4mm track is to build it yourself - the cost per turnout is not much different from buying the 'griders' Peco produce if you scratch build rather than use C&L kits.

[1] and I suspect that day will never arrive in OO gauge, but it might in EM, especially if alternate wheel sets also become widely available for RTR models.
Reply to
Jerry.

John,

Just because you perceive scratchbuilding of track as a chore doesn't mean that everyone else has to. There can be as much satisfaction in laying down a scratchbuilt formation that looks well, works well and is exactly what is required.

Jim.

Reply to
Jim Guthrie

"Jim Guthrie" wrote

I wasn't suggesting that everyone would find it a chore, different people have different priorities. Mine is to have a working railway within my lifetime.

I actually know a couple of women who *like* housework, which just proves my point! ;-)

John.

Reply to
John Turner

I thought the idea of model railway planning was to come up with plans that you haven't a hope in hell of achieving in a single lifetime :-)

Reply to
Paul Boyd

The second part of the idea is to convince yourself that the plan is achievable within (say) 2 years.

Reply to
Gregory Procter

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

Reply to
Dick Ganderton

Dirk,

Probably a bit heretical, but it is easier to build rolling stock with compensation. If you have rigid wheelbase stock then you have to ensure that the underframes are square if you want all four wheels on the track. With compensation, any slight inaccuracies in the underframe construction will be handles by the compensation.

The most common form of compensation is the use of folded up 'W' iron units with one unit fixed and the other able to rock. These units are easy to make up and install.

And there is now quite a move to provide actual springing in rolling stock and several manufacturers provide 'W' iron assembles to provide this. Basically, the axlebox can move up and down in the 'W' iron as in the prototype, but the spring is usually a piece of fine spring steel wire hidden behind the 'W' iron.

For locomotive compensation, look at getting a copy of Mike Sharman's book on Flexichas. It has been around for a good few years and a lot of people have used his ideas to provide effective compensation for locomotives. The book is still in publication - I saw new copies for sale on a book stand at the Bristol show today.

If you are going to make your own crossing 'V's and point blades, get yourself a decent sized file - like an 8" flat file, second cut. A good big file does the filing work quickly and a lot more accurately than doing it with small modeller's files. Make sure you get a good file. I bought an 8" flat file from the local B&Q a year ago and it was completely useless. I bought a Draper 8" file from the local ironmonger and it was quite good. However my preference is for Nicholson files, but you have to search around to find them.

And also get more than one track gauge - get at least two, and more if possible. When you start building pointwork you'll find that one gauge on its own is not all that much use.

Jim.

Reply to
Jim Guthrie

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.
Reply to
Terry Flynn

Which is an old attempt to define HO finescale track used back in 1936, that's 68 years of existence.

Martin, You need to get with the times, the OO-SF standard has a problem, the minimum track gauge and minimum wheel back to back are will cause problems. My web page has the corrected finescale standard which is compatable with most finescale wheels supplied with RTR models.

Reply to
Terry Flynn

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.

Reply to
Jerry.

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.

Reply to
Rich

If you say so, Terry.

My experience and that of many others is that 00-SF works just fine, gives improved running over 00-BF for

00 finescale, and suits most modern r-t-r unmodified. (But obviously not early r-t-r such as old Triang, Trix, Playcraft, etc.)

And if there is a problem with it then exactly the same problem must by definition exist with EM, which is in successful use by thousands of UK modellers.

??? I'm not sure that the present EM standard existed in 1936. 00-SF is derived from EM and is a UK standard for 00 gauge models at 4mm/ft - the requirements of H0 finescale are not relevant.

Martin.

---------- email: snipped-for-privacy@templot.com web:

formatting link

Reply to
Martin Wynne

Martin,

I'm sure a lot of us on this newsgrop would love to know when it became a standard, and who made it a standard. I thjink I keep abreast of things in the model railway press and the Internet, but it's the first I've ever heard of the gauge. Like someone else mentioned earlier, you sort of check the calendar for 1st April :-)

Jim.

Reply to
Jim Guthrie

A very sweeping statement!

And >

The trouble with this sort of discussion is that the parties are talking at cross purposes, and the original seeker of help will get increasingly confused, Dick no doubt knows what he meant by 'trackwork' but it is unlikely to be what Terry took it to be.

Building plain track and simple turnouts is pretty much independent of scale and gauge, difficulty wise, it varies by your skill sets, methods used and detail required. When you get into complex pointwork, slips, 3-ways, scissors etc. then you find that coarse standards get increasingly difficult because the parts don't fit together but you are OK with correct scale since you can do whatever the prototype did. This is where P4 is easier to build than 00. In fact in some cases 00 is impossible and you just have to avoid those formations.

Dirk, If you want to investigate P4 further and get some practical advice contact me off-list and we should be able to find a contact near you. Respond to snipped-for-privacy@scalefour.org

Keith

Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.

Reply to
Keith Norgrove

Well, I have to admit it's the first I've ever heard of it as well, but if it is an April Fool, then it's very elaborate because that track standard is in my copy of Templot and has been for some time! However, one of my preferred standards, S4n2, isn't. (Ooops, sorry Martin - wrong group!!!!)

Reply to
Paul Boyd

"Paul Boyd" wrote

It's the first I've heard of it too and I've been in modelling and the trade for longer than I care to admit. It's strikes me as an even more ludicrous option that OO-scale - that in itself a poor compromise, but to narrow the gauge further seems to offer nothing that isn't already there and in much wider use.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

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.

Reply to
Dirk Belcher

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.