The Ffarquhar Branch

[AlfaZagato]

Curious that Peco reduced the sleeper spacing.  Especially when one of the first things I hear when posing a OO layout is extend the spacing.

[ian]

Don't forget Peco have a large export market so their OO track is designed to appeal to HO users.

 

Peco Streamline used to be marketed as "looks longer", a great marketing twist and sounds a lot better than "is to a different scale".

[AlfaZagato]

I'm still curious, though.  Peco's code 75 is aimed squarely at the UK market.   Peco markets their code 83 for the US market.  

[ian]

This goes way back - to the Code 100. The advert below is from 1962.

 

Yes, the bullhead code 75 is a UK product and the code 83 is for the US but the code 100 was the original and sold worldwide. It still is.

 

Edited September 27 by ian

[Pacific231G]

On 26/09/2024 at 16:16, ian said:

Don't forget Peco have a large export market so their OO track is designed to appeal to HO users.

 

Peco Streamline used to be marketed as "looks longer", a great marketing twist and sounds a lot better than "is to a different scale".

Peco Streamline is indeed H0 track. There used to be a myth that it was a sort of vague half-way  between US and UK sleeper spacing to try to appeal to both markets. In reality, the sleeper spacing and dimensions are pretty well spot on for French mainline track with 600 mm spacing.  Sydney Pritchard had long been an advocate of using the correct 3.5mm/ft  scale for 16.5 mm gauge track so seems to have decided, sod them, rather than the convolutions needed to make 00 track look sort of right for 4mm scale standard gauge, which it never really can be,  he'd just make H0 track and have done with it. I'm sure the export market was a major factor in that and Peco weren't the only track maker to do the same.

Despite its overwide tie spacing for American track, Streamline always sold quite well there but their Code 83 range is designed for that market and follows NMRA specs.  If you look at magazines like Loco-Revue, I'd say that about 2/3 of published French layouts use Peco Streamline - these days mainly code 75- and there are even third party kits available to superdetail and "Francify" the points. Though it was AFAIK designed with British 4mm scale sleeper spacing, Peco's Bullhead range also sells well in France fo the the fairly finescale market for double champignon track,  which about half the pre-SNCF companies used and which can still be found on some branch lines. 

Edited October 14 by Pacific231G

[WhitehouseFilms]

The cork underlay should be arriving soon. In the meantime, I've been busy cutting the sleepers from the mesh and testing the spacing on the first length.

I've also done a third of the ones in the tunnel as the curve starts outside. I suppose thats handy with set track, the set radius makes it easier for when relaying the track comes to play. 

I'll also see about getting some ballast next weekend as I'm planning on going out to the model shop next weekend to pick up some things. 

 

[WhitehouseFilms]

OK, So the cork arrived and shortly after that, work began on relaying the track. The cork was laid in the usual manner and given a base coat of grey garden paint before the track was pinned in place. Already with the sleepers spaced out, I'm getting good vibes from this. Now I've had to remove the road bridge that was there mainly to gain access for track connection and base painting. However I had been planning on replacing that bridge as I'd gotten the design of it wrong and just hadn't time to get it remade. So now was a good enough time to do this. I've just a few more sleepers to add on the last bit of set track and then thats this side of the layout done. 

Before making the new road bridge, I thought I'd also take the chance to tidy up the Hackenbeck area and improve a few areas that I later discovered I'd missed out. The first of these is the Inn, The Three Beetles, made from one of the Bilteezi card kits. One detail I didn't noticed was that the original building sat on a paved layer whilst mine didn't. So after giving the courtyard a coat of new paint, Country Cream, a paved section was printed from my computer and stuck on card and secured in place. I've still a little pottering to do in the Inn's garden and bowling green before I can glue the building back in place. 

I must point out again just how effective Cuprinol Garden Shades are for this project in bringing the layout's scenery back to live. I can definitely say that these have been a vital asset to the layout's renovation. 

[WhitehouseFilms]

So yesterday the track got its first lot of ballast. This is WS Medium Buff, a nice base colour to work from that I can tone down with paint after. Looking at references of the original layout, the colour of the track has a sort of brownish look to it so this shade works well with the surround scenery's pallet. Now even with careful procedure, the glue sticking the ballast down did cause some to go a bit astray but once it dries I'll be able to tidy up the messy bits and do a light weathering on them before moving further with the project. 

Once this ballast dries, I'll start work on the makings of the new road bridge to be fitted into place. A plan of the original bridge from the track plan has been printed to 1:1 scale so I'll use this for reference for the size and angle while reference photos and such can be used for the main structural appearance. 

Edited October 10 by WhitehouseFilms

[RJS1977]

On 26/09/2024 at 14:57, AlfaZagato said:

Curious that Peco reduced the sleeper spacing.  Especially when one of the first things I hear when posing a OO layout is extend the spacing.

 

Remember though that 00 track is 2mm too narrow. To my eyes, 00 track with "scale" sleeper spacing doesn't look right,  as it emphasises that the track is too narrow!

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Remember though that 00 track is 2mm too narrow. To my eyes, 00 track with "scale" sleeper spacing doesn't look right,  as it emphasises that the track is too narrow!

The key is to have shorter sleepers, so that the length outside the rail is correct. SMP did this very well.

[Pacific231G]

6 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Remember though that 00 track is 2mm too narrow. To my eyes, 00 track with "scale" sleeper spacing doesn't look right,  as it emphasises that the track is too narrow!

I agree and 16.5 mm gauge is almost 2.5mm too narrow. Unfortunately, there is no complete answer to the problem apart from adopting  H0, EM or P4. I think the compromise suggested many years ago by the BRMSB was to use 4mm/ft "scale" sleeper spacing but to shorten the sleepers somewhat to reduce the narrow gauge effect. With such a compromise there is of course no mathematically correct answer and it comes down to perception.

I have some SMP track and while the shorter sleepers do help, the spacing still looks wrong for the gauge. SMP bullhead track has nevertheless been quite popular with finer scale French modellers for the double champignon  track that half the pre SNCF companies used and which still exists in places. Peco do also market their bullhead track in France as  H0 double champignon and it seems to be selling quite well. 

 

FWIW my own thoughts are that the best way to stop 00 track from looking too narrow gauge is to accept that the track itself IS to 1:87 scale and space the sleepers accordingly .  I believe that the standard British spacing for wooden sleepering is 30 inches (760 mm) centre to centre (but closer at rail joints) which is 8.75 mm in 1:87 scale . The length and width of Peco's flat bottom sleepers are also fairly acurate for 1:87 scale  (The dimensions  of sleepers are pretty well the same throughout Europe though American ties, which are more closely spaced, are narrower). That doesn't though get round the problem of over-wide track spacing  and platforms too far from the near rail. The closer sleeper spacing may also be apparent when stock is on it.  

 

Fortunately, apart from pointwork, it is fairly straightforward to respace Peco sleepers. For the sidings on my H0 French layout I did widen some of the the Peco sleepering (using a simple jig) as the 7 mm (= 609 mm) spacing of Streamline is correct for fast main lines in H0 scale but too close for sidings and secondary lines. 

 

Getting back on topic, Awdrey used Wrenn track for the original Ffarquhar and the sleeper spacing on that does look wide. Wrenn's range at that time included both 15 and 24 inch radius "universal" (i.e. closing frog) straight points. In his original 1959 article he says that the minimum radius was 18 inches so I assume the points are 24 inch radius. I was able to reproduce the plan using Peco Streamline small radius points so that does makes sense. (Surprisingly, closing frog points don't look nearly as obviously wrong as one might expect: about half of John Ahern's points on the Madder Valley are built that way and you have to look twice to spot them.) 

 

 

Edited October 11 by Pacific231G
addition of use of Wrenn track

[St Enodoc]

12 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I agree and 16.5 mm gauge is almost 2.5mm too narrow. Unfortunately, there is no complete answer to the problem apart from adopting  H0, EM or P4. I think the compromise suggested many years ago by the BRMSB was to use 4mm/ft "scale" sleeper spacing but to shorten the sleepers somewhat to reduce the narrow gauge effect. With such a compromise there is of course no matematically correct answer and it comes down to perception.

I have some SMP track and while the shorter sleepers do help, the spacing still looks wrong for the gauge. SMP bullhead track has nevertheless been quite popular with finer scale French modellers for the double champignon  track that half the pre SNCF companies used and which still exists in places. Peco do also market their bullhead track in France as  H0 double champignon and it seems to be selling quite well. 

 

FWIW my own thoughts are that the best way to stop 00 track from looking too narrow gauge is to accept that the track itself IS to 1:87 scale and space the sleepers accordingly .  I believe that the standard British spacing for wooden sleepering is 30 inches (760 mm) centre to centre (but closer at rail joints) which is 8.75 mm in 1:87 scale . The length and width of Peco's flat bottom sleepers are also fairly acurate for 1:87 scale  (The dimensions  of sleepers are pretty well the same throughout Europe though American ties, which are more closely spaced, are narrower). That doesn't though get round the problem of over-wide track spacing  and platforms too far from the near rail. The closer sleeper spacing may also be apparent when stock is on it.  

 

Fortunately, apart from pointwork, it is fairly straightforward to respace Peco sleepers. For the sidings on my H0 French layout I did widen some of the the Peco sleepering (using a simple jig) as the 7 mm (= 609 mm) spacing of Streamline is correct for fast main lines in H0 scale but too close for sidings and secondary lines. 

Interesting. To me, since the gauge is too narrow, the length of the sleepers (in terms of the projection outside the rail) is more significant than the spacing. Lengthwise, imagine that a full scale wagon covers X sleepers. A model wagon (any scale) should, therefore, cover X sleepers too. Hence, SMP track with 32mm long sleepers and the existing sleeper spacing (can't remember what that is and it's too late at night to go outside and check) looks right to me.

[AlfaZagato]

It's all a matter of taste if we're accepting the wrong gauge. 

 

A shame Marklin only released Flying Scotsman, and no coaches.   Not that anyone could afford them...

[WhitehouseFilms]

So I've now ballasted up to the level crossing and some areas have been given a little paint to blend to the ballast. Cuprinol Garden Shades are used once more. I still need to add a bit of weathering to the middle of the tracks but I'll leave this till last as I've still a bit of looking along the track side before I'm ready to go that stage. The level crossing gates have been removed as upon looking at reference photos of the original layout, It appears the gates are single type gates rather than split type. These I'll custom make as a 3d print. 

Now one item which has been discussed in the previous page was about the alterations of point work on the layout to match the rest of the tracks. Now I've been busy with a test sample just to see if such a task can be done to set track points.

Now it still needs some check rails to prevent derailments when crossing over, but so far it seems to be getting there. The sleepers will be trimmed down to the correct distance on the layout's points.

Constructive criticism is welcome if there is something I've done wrong with this test. But so far the alteration seems to have gone the way I wanted it to. 

 

Edited October 13 by WhitehouseFilms

[WhitehouseFilms]

Alright so a little progress to share. I've now completed the Hackenbeck side of the layout and making a start on the station side.

This means altering the first of the paintwork which is the curved point leading in. Now unlike my test sample, I decided to not cut away the check rails on the points just to make it easier for engines and stock to get around, so I hope the purists can allow this acceptation. The remaining sleepers will be added to the middle to complete this turnout before moving on to the rest. I laid the point on some Gaugemaster cork bed template for this particular point which was very handy and re-profiled the point on it, slotting some pre-cut sleepers from flexible track to keep the gauge while gluing moulded sleepers to set the profile right. The trick is knowing where to cut so that you have all the required items still secured on the mould so that the point can still function without issues or chances of breaking during the modification. So for this being my first actual working modified turnout, I'm actually quite pleased with this.

Before working on the others, I need to order some more cork templates/cork sheet so that I can rebuild the other points on those. While I'm waiting on them, I can continue on along the quarry tramway and get the remaining track round there re-profiled and installed. So far, the progress has been going really well and constant checks will all stock to ensure everything works around it are carried out so that no faults are found. 

[harris0169]

It's great to see the sleeper difference comparing main line and sidings. The difference is quite striking. 

 

All the best

Andy