Wright writes.....

[Chuffer Davies]

1 hour ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

On the right track?

 

Hi everyone,

 

this year I decided to start doing modelling properly. Building brass coach kits, loco kits and Finescale layouts. I’ve also decided to learn from the great modellers on here and go EM from the start, to save me building lots of kits then deciding I want to go EM later down the line. My OO gauge layout was ripped up a few weeks ago and I’m in the process of selling all my OO stock to fund my 18x2ft EM gauge model of Falsgrave and Scarborough Central during the Late NER/early LNER days. But I’m not sure what I want to do about track… there are lots of different paths for EM and I’ve no idea which is the best option for me!

 

 

What option would everyone recommend for the Permanent Way? I want my track work to be as realistic as possible, but looking at point kits from the likes of C&L, these seem prohibitively expensive. I’ve just read the late Iain Rice’s book on PCB track, and this option seems very cheap and easy to produce, especially for the very complex and flowing point work around Falsgrave tunnel, but will lack a lot of detail as the chairs are missed off. However, Rice’s layouts show that from the standard 4ft viewing distance, these omissions aren’t noticeable, especially when weathered correctly. DCC concepts offer PCB track kits with realistic looking brass chairs, but they don’t offer chairs for point work to the best of my knowledge, so I’m wondering if these would look worse when half the track has chairs and the other half doesn’t!

There’s also the EM track offered by The EMGS, some of which I own. It seems to be a good middle of the range choice, but only offers flexi track and B6 points, so I’m still going to have to go down another route for the rest of the layout.

 

I really could do with some guidance from people with more experience than me. It’ll be good to get other peoples views on what they recommend, or if there’s anything I’ve not thought about!

 

Hi Dylan,  I think you are definitely on the right track, but I would say that wouldn't I having been an EM modeller exclusively for the last 40 years or so?

 

Before answering your question I think we need to know more about your modelling interests and abilities?  If you have no interest in building your own track then you would benefit from using as much pre-made track work as possible.  If you think you might like building track but feel intimidated by the thought of doing so then there are other options.  It is important that what ever track you settle on needs to be fit for purpose as when you start building/converting rolling stock you need to be sure that if there are any issues with poor running that it is definitely not the track that's at fault.

 

The EMGS track is a a good start point.  There is also a new range of 3D printed point kits under the British Finescale brand produced by Wayne Kinney.  The rail is pre-machined, so no filing is required, and even the most ham-fisted modeller should be able to build a point in about an hour.  The only 'modelling' skill required is to solder the electrical collections.  The points are B7's and I think he has also done a 1:7 diamond and a 1:7 single slip as well.  

 

If you need points or crossings built to a different geometry then you will need to get into track building.  The C&L components (with plastic sleepers)  are probably the best match to the EMGS and British Finescale track work.  Their kits are very expensive but they do include pre-machines blades and point V's, but they also sell these separately.  Blades and V's are actually very easy to file by hand, especially if you use the filing jigs available from the EMGS.  Members can purchase these mail order from the Society's trade officer, or non members can purchase them from the trade stand at EMGS exhibitions.  There is one coming up in May at Bracknell. The same purchasing constraints apply to purchasing EMGS B6 points and plain track.  I would suggest that PCB track, whilst possibly the simplest to build is not great to mix and match with other commercial offerings but is probably the best option for off-scene storage sidings (fiddle yards).

 

The EMGS has a number of local area groups that meet monthly and you may benefit from joining one of these if there is one in your area.  I can't speak for all area groups but certainly our local group in Leeds does not require you to be an EMGS member to join.   There is almost certainly someone in the area group who will be able to demonstrate track construction.

 

Finally I would recommend your joining the EMGS if you have not already done so.  Members receive the EMGS handbook which includes fact sheets regarding all manner of things including track building and converting various RTR stock to  EM gauge.

 

Welcome to the world of EM.

Frank 

 

 

[polybear]

3 hours ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

On the right track?

 

Hi everyone,

 

this year I decided to start doing modelling properly. Building brass coach kits, loco kits and Finescale layouts. I’ve also decided to learn from the great modellers on here and go EM from the start, to save me building lots of kits then deciding I want to go EM later down the line. My OO gauge layout was ripped up a few weeks ago and I’m in the process of selling all my OO stock to fund my 18x2ft EM gauge model of Falsgrave and Scarborough Central during the Late NER/early LNER days. But I’m not sure what I want to do about track… there are lots of different paths for EM and I’ve no idea which is the best option for me!

 

 

What option would everyone recommend for the Permanent Way? I want my track work to be as realistic as possible, but looking at point kits from the likes of C&L, these seem prohibitively expensive. I’ve just read the late Iain Rice’s book on PCB track, and this option seems very cheap and easy to produce, especially for the very complex and flowing point work around Falsgrave tunnel, but will lack a lot of detail as the chairs are missed off. However, Rice’s layouts show that from the standard 4ft viewing distance, these omissions aren’t noticeable, especially when weathered correctly. DCC concepts offer PCB track kits with realistic looking brass chairs, but they don’t offer chairs for point work to the best of my knowledge, so I’m wondering if these would look worse when half the track has chairs and the other half doesn’t!

There’s also the EM track offered by The EMGS, some of which I own. It seems to be a good middle of the range choice, but only offers flexi track and B6 points, so I’m still going to have to go down another route for the rest of the layout.

 

I really could do with some guidance from people with more experience than me. It’ll be good to get other peoples views on what they recommend, or if there’s anything I’ve not thought about!

 

 

Making your own common crossings and turnout blades will save a great deal (the ready- made examples from C&L are very expensive) whatever the method of track construction.  The EMGS normally stock jigs to assist with construction - quite expensive but save a fortune, and can be sold for a good price on Ebay when no longer required.

[PMP]

Having modelled in EM and OO I personally would stay with the OO route particularly with the new track Peco/Kinney that’s available and C&L. EM can be significantly more work particularly if converting RTR, and some kits aren’t EM friendly either. However if you’re happy with those ‘downsides’ then go for it. PCB track can be made to look very good too with a bit of work so I personally wouldn’t get too fixated on whether the track needs to be a specific style or not, go with what works for you.

 

What would be sensible would be to build a point in PCB and one in ‘chaired’ format because if you find you don’t like building track, you’ll be looking at Comission build or mates rates swaps. I can hand build track but it’s not a key interest, so I wouldn’t choose a location with large amounts of track building as it’s not ‘my bag’. A point build would give you an early indicator if that’s the same for you, or if it floats your boat.

Edited April 4, 2023 by PMP
Addition

[Jol Wilkinson]

4 hours ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

On the right track?

 

Hi everyone,

 

this year I decided to start doing modelling properly. Building brass coach kits, loco kits and Finescale layouts. I’ve also decided to learn from the great modellers on here and go EM from the start, to save me building lots of kits then deciding I want to go EM later down the line. My OO gauge layout was ripped up a few weeks ago and I’m in the process of selling all my OO stock to fund my 18x2ft EM gauge model of Falsgrave and Scarborough Central during the Late NER/early LNER days. But I’m not sure what I want to do about track… there are lots of different paths for EM and I’ve no idea which is the best option for me!

 

 

What option would everyone recommend for the Permanent Way? I want my track work to be as realistic as possible, but looking at point kits from the likes of C&L, these seem prohibitively expensive. I’ve just read the late Iain Rice’s book on PCB track, and this option seems very cheap and easy to produce, especially for the very complex and flowing point work around Falsgrave tunnel, but will lack a lot of detail as the chairs are missed off. However, Rice’s layouts show that from the standard 4ft viewing distance, these omissions aren’t noticeable, especially when weathered correctly. DCC concepts offer PCB track kits with realistic looking brass chairs, but they don’t offer chairs for point work to the best of my knowledge, so I’m wondering if these would look worse when half the track has chairs and the other half doesn’t!

There’s also the EM track offered by The EMGS, some of which I own. It seems to be a good middle of the range choice, but only offers flexi track and B6 points, so I’m still going to have to go down another route for the rest of the layout.

 

I really could do with some guidance from people with more experience than me. It’ll be good to get other peoples views on what they recommend, or if there’s anything I’ve not thought about!

 

To add to Chuffers and Polybears post C&L also list brass slide and crossing nose chairs. I suggest   using them would be very expensive at £1:00 each.

 

I think the downsides to which PMP refers are totally outweighed by the look of good trackwork with flowing curves and more realistic checkrail gaps. I model in P4 and find building track to a Templot design straightforward and very satisfying. I build points using ply/rivet for the more important locations like the crossing vee nose, check rail positions, etc. with Exactoscale plastic chairs everywhere else. Okay, so it takes more time but it depends where your preferences lie.

 

This is P4 but shows what trackwork can be like without too much effort. You could achieve something like this in OO but I don't know if the standard OO and EM kits would provide it.

 

 

Many etched kits are designed for all three 4mm gauges so aren't a problem to build. Your post indicates the NER may by your main interest, for which there are plenty of loco kits. There aren't many NER RTR locos available. so converting them isn't going to be a major challenge.

 

Joining the EMGs is a great idea if you are not already a member. They have about twenty Area Groups, your nearest being Sheffield based.

[Tony Wright]

My most grateful thanks for all the offers of B1 bodies.

 

Well, I started the O4/8 process today...............

 

 

Some bits of brass, nickel silver and some fusewire, and I've got the cab done.

 

The process wasn't helped by one footplate side on the old K's O4 being nearly 2mm longer than the other! 

 

The rest should be easy...........

[t-b-g]

6 hours ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

On the right track?

 

Hi everyone,

 

this year I decided to start doing modelling properly. Building brass coach kits, loco kits and Finescale layouts. I’ve also decided to learn from the great modellers on here and go EM from the start, to save me building lots of kits then deciding I want to go EM later down the line. My OO gauge layout was ripped up a few weeks ago and I’m in the process of selling all my OO stock to fund my 18x2ft EM gauge model of Falsgrave and Scarborough Central during the Late NER/early LNER days. But I’m not sure what I want to do about track… there are lots of different paths for EM and I’ve no idea which is the best option for me!

 

 

What option would everyone recommend for the Permanent Way? I want my track work to be as realistic as possible, but looking at point kits from the likes of C&L, these seem prohibitively expensive. I’ve just read the late Iain Rice’s book on PCB track, and this option seems very cheap and easy to produce, especially for the very complex and flowing point work around Falsgrave tunnel, but will lack a lot of detail as the chairs are missed off. However, Rice’s layouts show that from the standard 4ft viewing distance, these omissions aren’t noticeable, especially when weathered correctly. DCC concepts offer PCB track kits with realistic looking brass chairs, but they don’t offer chairs for point work to the best of my knowledge, so I’m wondering if these would look worse when half the track has chairs and the other half doesn’t!

There’s also the EM track offered by The EMGS, some of which I own. It seems to be a good middle of the range choice, but only offers flexi track and B6 points, so I’m still going to have to go down another route for the rest of the layout.

 

I really could do with some guidance from people with more experience than me. It’ll be good to get other peoples views on what they recommend, or if there’s anything I’ve not thought about!

 

 

If you are looking to try to go down the more building things for yourself branch of the hobby, then you can really go for the little details that make a difference.

 

For track, there are some excellent publications from the NERA, which include proper permanent way standards for the NER, so you can actually build models of genuine NER points. Just laying out the sleepering as per your chosen company can really lift a model and you will probably find that you should be using 9ft sleepers rather than 8ft 6ins, which the ready to lay points (and plain track) will be.

 

For my last few pregrouping layouts, I have made my own points and plain track from plywood sleepers and either C&L or Exactoscale chairs. Even if not exactly the right pattern, at least you can choose chairs with the correct number of fixing holes.

 

These are to GNR drawings and show the unusual features of several different sleeper widths, including some 16in wide ones, which take two chairs overlapping.

 

Much depends on what you want from the hobby. If getting your layout up and running as quickly as possible then building your own track is not the way to get there. If you want to learn how to build track and points, then EM is as easy as 00 and probably easier as you won't need such big gaps through check rails and crossing noses.

 

I switched to EM in the late 1970s and I have never regretted it for one moment, having built, alone or with others, over a dozen layouts of various sizes and shapes from 6ft long to one with an end to end run of 140ft.

Edited April 4, 2023 by t-b-g
Correct typo

[Leander]

3 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Joining the EMGs is a great idea if you are not already a member. They have about twenty Area Groups, your nearest being Sheffield based.

 

The EMGS Membership Secretary will be at theYork show this coming weekend.

 

There isn't an actual EMGS Area Group based in Sheffield, the nearest on that side of the Pennines is Leeds/Harrogate.

 

Peter

Edited April 4, 2023 by Leander

[polybear]

It may also be worth researching 00-sf (or 4-sf) - basically it's 16.2mm with 1mm crossing flangeway gaps (the same as EM - so the appearance is improved); recent RTR will run on it without modification.  

I'd suggest a look at the "Handbuilt Track and Templot" Board on RMWeb, as well as the Templot site for further information.

 

edit:  It's been pointed out that this post may sound like I'm trying to dissuade the O.P. from going down the EM route - that isn't my intention (I'm a member of both the EMGS and the S4Soc.); my original intention was to model in EM but got seduced by too many RTR Locos and after a while it became all too apparent that converting them all to EM (with the risk of associated tears....) just wasn't sensible.

 

The above info regarding 00-sf was simply intended as another option, that's all.

Edited April 5, 2023 by polybear

[t-b-g]

24 minutes ago, polybear said:

It may also be worth researching 00-sf (or 4-sf) - basically it's 16.2mm with 1mm crossing flangeway gaps (the same as EM - so the appearance is improved); recent RTR will run on it without modification.  

I'd suggest a look at the "Handbuilt Track and Templot" Board on RMWeb, as well as the Templot site for further information.

Sometimes it isn't all about using RTR.

 

I am a bit disappointed to see people trying to put a possible convert off going down the EM route.

 

It is rewarding and satisfying path and although not for everybody, I wouldn't dream of trying to suggest that somebody shouldn't give it a try.

[Barclay]

25 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

Sometimes it isn't all about using RTR.

 

I am a bit disappointed to see people trying to put a possible convert off going down the EM route.

 

It is rewarding and satisfying path and although not for everybody, I wouldn't dream of trying to suggest that somebody shouldn't give it a try.

I couldn't agree more - please don't believe any naysayers who say this is difficult, if it was I wouldn't be doing it. Today you have the choice of building kits and scratchbuilding, but much of the modern RTR is very easily convertible - on the EMGS demo stand at Ally Pally, Nigel Burbridge took a Hornby J15 out of its box on Saturday morning, together with a set of Gibson conversion parts. After lunch it was running on the EM rolling road as sweetly as anything.

[Tony Wright]

Far be it from me to dissuade a potential convert to EM; indeed, I wished I'd taken up the 'best compromise' 4mm gauge when I had the opportunity well over 40 years ago. But, I didn't, and I've been far too long down the OO path now to even contemplate change (though I do build loco frames in EM for use on Retford). 

 

However, it depends what one is attempting to model. If it's a class one steam main line with lots of trains, then anyone contemplating EM is going to have to do an awful lot of building/modifying, be that trackwork and/or locos/rolling stock. It can be done, on the 'heroic' scale. Take Retford, for instance, which has outlived its great creator (more in my next post). Or, how about Carlisle? Only achieved by employing some top-quality builders, on a budget most modellers can only dream about. 

 

 

Roy Jackson's uncompleted masterpiece, thankfully saved by Sandra Orpen, with the team back intent on finishing it.

 

 

 

And, if you have over 90' in length at your disposal, with an elite team, anything is possible, illustrated here in these shots of Carlisle. 

 

These two layouts are much more than 'just' EM Gauge, of course. Though the gauge is important, even vital, they're models of actual prototypes, which is more important to me. 

 

I've spoken to some EM modellers and I've been told that had the current OO RTR standards been available when they were adopting EM, they might have thought twice; they chose EM because of the better running achieved at the time.

 

I'll be investigating the subject further in my next post............

 

 

 

 

[gr.king]

I can see both sides of the discussion. EM looks good (P4 even more so if all done to maximum standard, and if it then runs properly) but means that progress will be at least a little slower (P4 more so) and restrictions on curve radii apply more strongly. Even most of the "easy" RTR loco /stock conversions will require purchase of extra parts, at extra cost.  If you build your own chaired track it won't be cheap.  OO generally looks less refined, but even for those strongly averse to track building there is no longer any need at all to ruin the appearance altogether by using Peco girder-rails and/or crowded/stunted sleepers. Although I prefer OO I happen to like building rolling stock, most of the time anyway, especially if I'm producing something unique or at least not available RTR, but it is a relief on occasions to be able to take a nice RTR model straight out of the box to see it run nicely, need no modifications, and fit straight in to my modelling scheme. While you can't make even the best OO bullhead track with reasonable sleepers look dead-right in multi-track formations, you can close up the track centres to a better, narrower figure than the RTR standard, and that certainly helps.  I feel that no matter how you model, if you are being at all practical about things, then you'll have to compromise somewhere, so I'm not sure whether exact track gauge is vital. Suit yourself in the end, and let others suit themselves too.  And if you intend to do everything on a "scale it down exactly, regardless of difficulty" basis, then don't hold your breath waiting for a final result...

Edited April 5, 2023 by gr.king
spelling mistake

[Michael Edge]

1 hour ago, polybear said:

It may also be worth researching 00-sf (or 4-sf) - basically it's 16.2mm with 1mm crossing flangeway gaps (the same as EM - so the appearance is improved); recent RTR will run on it without modification.  

I'd suggest a look at the "Handbuilt Track and Templot" Board on RMWeb, as well as the Templot site for further information.

I use this gauge now (originally referred to as EM -2) and it works very well - looks better as well with narrower flangeways. However I'm only doing this because like Tony I have far too much investmet in 00 gauge to change, if I was starting again I would certainly use EM. Plain track is no problem, readily available from more than one source, pointwork is different, mostly you have to build it but with the right gauges and drawings it isn't that difficult. I should perhaps add that the last time I used bought in pointwork was the three rail Wrenn track which replaced my original Hornby Dublo - I've been building my own ever since.

[Tony Wright]

1 minute ago, gr.king said:

I can see both sides of the discussion. EM looks good (P4 even more so if all done to maximum standard, and if it then runs properly) but means that progress will be at least a little slower (P4 more so) and restrictions on curve radii apply more strongly. Even most of the "easy" RTR loco /stock conversions will require purchase of extra parts, at extra cost.  If you build your own chaired track it won't be cheap.  OO generally looks less refined, but even for those strongly averse to track building there is no longer any need at all to ruin the appearance altogether by using Peco girder-rails and/or crowded/stunted sleepers. Although I prefer OO I happen to like building rolling stock, most of the time anyway, especially if I'm producing something unique or at least not available RTR, but it is a relief on occasions to be able to take a nice RTR model straight out of the box to see it run nicely, need no modifications, and fit straight in to my modelling scheme. While you can't make even the best OO bullhead track with reasonable sleepers look dead-right in multi-track formations, you can close up the track centres to a better, narrower figure than the RTR standard, and that certainly helps.  I feel that no matter how you model, if you are being at all practical about things, then you'll have to compromise somewhere, so I'm not sure whether exact trach gauge is vital. Suit yourself in the end, and let others suit themselves too.  And if you intend to do everything on a "scale it down exactly, regardless of difficulty" basis, then don't hold your breath waiting for a final result...

Good morning Graeme,

 

Exactly my sentiments.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[APOLLO]

Track - It's spring and nice and sunny here in Wigan, time to sort out the garden railway, this area has become a tad tatty over the years.

 

Now is this Model Railroading, Civil Engineering or Gardening ? Certainly some hard work and backache involved !!

This Peco G track is well over 20 years old, laid on fine stone ballast with no track problems over this time.

 

Track Raised on blocks, old ballast / earth  / weeds / worms / frogs / etc removed (and kept for packing under rocks etc around the garden).

 

 

Ground barrier sheet cut and laid, track refixed and lined.

Also time to sort out some overgrown shrubbery and the twice cut down "miniature" conifer that grew to 15ft high !!

 

 

Ballasting time applied loose, the track sits on and in the ballast, like the real thing, easy to adjust etc and strong enough to walk on.

 

 

 

Quick spray with the hose pipe to remove dust and final leveling , adjusting / line cleaning and the first trains of the year will be done over the Easter weekend. The rest of the line doesn't need this treatment, just the yearly clean adjust line & level.

 

Brit15

[Tony Wright]

Continuing on with the discussion.........

 

I'm extremely fortunate in that Bytham's scenic-side trackwork was built/laid by the finest exponent of the craft in the land (or even the World?). 

 

 

 

Norman Solomon. 

 

Certainly, in the first of these two examples, I'd say it would be difficult to tell which gauge it was (it's fine scale OO, of course). 

 

Not everyone has the 'luxury' of having the master build the track (though it was part of a DVD series as well). 

 

Apart from a few adjustments, the trackwork seen above could equally well have been built in EM. But, when it came to the fiddle yard(s), imagine my having to make all the pointwork for this (there's no way I could afford for Norman to make over 90 copper-clad EM points!). 

 

 

 

 

 

I laid it all, but it's 'just' Peco Code 100 (for robustness and reliability).

 

In the wider view..................

 

 

I don't think the overall effect is that much different, whether it be OO or EM. 

 

Even in closer views...........

 

 

 

 

At track level, Norman's superlative track still looks well, even though it is only 'narrow gauge' (though the fast lines should be flat-bottom). 

 

The most important thing is the running - which has to be 'perfect'.

 

Speaking of perfect running.............

 

 

 

Back to Retford...............

 

I concede that in tight perspective, the wider (and more-accurate) gauge is apparent (as are the slightly-saggy baseboards), and I still wish I'd adopted EM all those years ago. (Both these locos, by the way, are RTR in their origins).

 

It's, as always, down to personal choice. As is well known, mine will be to always model an actual prototype, whatever the gauge.........

 

 

[Compound2632]

30 minutes ago, gr.king said:

While you can't make even the best OO bullhead track with reasonable sleepers look dead-right in multi-track formations, you can close up the track centres to a better, narrower figure than the RTR standard, and that certainly helps. 

 

This, to me, is key. If only the N-gaugers would take note!

 

Laying 00 double track to 45 mm centres (or 44.67 mm if you will) makes an enormous difference, not just to the appearance of the trackwork. It means that the formation can be modelled to scale width - most importantly, overbridges can be to scale. That saving of 5 or 6 mm in width (compared to the "Peco standard" 50 mm or 2 in, whichever it is) gives one just that little bit more baseboard width to play with, scenically. There's a length saving too, as a crossover will be shorter by 5 or 6 mm times the tangent of the crossing angle - 23 mm to 28 mm for Peco standard geometry. 

 

Of course there needs to be some carefully-measured centre-widening on curves but the shorter your bogie carriages the less this will need to be. It can probably be avoided altogether if you stick to a goods-only line worked by 0-6-0s!

[BMacdermott]

Hello Tony and everyone

 

You may recall that I appealed for information as to where I might buy a replacement chimney for the one that had gone missing without trace from my Hornby J15. The problem was soon resolved with help from contributors here.

 

Guess what...the missing chimney has now turned up!

 

Although I searched widely, moving boxes etc, it didn't come to light as it had lodged in a small roll of recycling bin bags that were under my layout and dropped out when I went to get a new one!

 

Such is life!

 

It raises a point...

 

Although I am not 'an activist eco warrior', I do try my best to recycle what I can. My railway room has an ordinary waste bin as well as one for recycling. 

 

Does anyone else?

 

Brian

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Michael Edge said:

I use this gauge now (originally referred to as EM -2) and it works very well - looks better as well with narrower flangeways. However I'm only doing this because like Tony I have far too much investmet in 00 gauge to change, if I was starting again I would certainly use EM. Plain track is no problem, readily available from more than one source, pointwork is different, mostly you have to build it but with the right gauges and drawings it isn't that difficult. I should perhaps add that the last time I used bought in pointwork was the three rail Wrenn track which replaced my original Hornby Dublo - I've been building my own ever since.

The last time I bought any pointwork (probably a Fleischmann double slip!) was just before you and @Nicktoix taught me how to make my own, circa 1976.

 

One thing that is obvious when you think about it but not when you don't is that any given piece of pointwork in EM will be about 10% longer than the equivalent piece in 00, which might be important on small layouts.

[Chuffer Davies]

29 minutes ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello Tony and everyone

 

You may recall that I appealed for information as to where I might buy a replacement chimney for the one that had gone missing without trace from my Hornby J15. The problem was soon resolved with help from contributors here.

 

Guess what...the missing chimney has now turned up!

 

Although I searched widely, moving boxes etc, it didn't come to light as it had lodged in a small roll of recycling bin bags that were under my layout and dropped out when I went to get a new one!

 

Such is life!

 

It raises a point...

 

Although I am not 'an activist eco warrior', I do try my best to recycle what I can. My railway room has an ordinary waste bin as well as one for recycling. 

 

Does anyone else?

 

Brian

That’s a yes from me. 
I also have two tubs, one for brass waste and the other for n/silver waste.  One of these days I’ll take a trip to the scrap metal merchant and see if he’ll offer me something for them. 
Frank

[Jol Wilkinson]

1 hour ago, gr.king said:

I can see both sides of the discussion. EM looks good (P4 even more so if all done to maximum standard, and if it then runs properly) but means that progress will be at least a little slower (P4 more so) and restrictions on curve radii apply more strongly. Even most of the "easy" RTR loco /stock conversions will require purchase of extra parts, at extra cost.  If you build your own chaired track it won't be cheap.  OO generally looks less refined, but even for those strongly averse to track building there is no longer any need at all to ruin the appearance altogether by using Peco girder-rails and/or crowded/stunted sleepers. Although I prefer OO I happen to like building rolling stock, most of the time anyway, especially if I'm producing something unique or at least not available RTR, but it is a relief on occasions to be able to take a nice RTR model straight out of the box to see it run nicely, need no modifications, and fit straight in to my modelling scheme. While you can't make even the best OO bullhead track with reasonable sleepers look dead-right in multi-track formations, you can close up the track centres to a better, narrower figure than the RTR standard, and that certainly helps.  I feel that no matter how you model, if you are being at all practical about things, then you'll have to compromise somewhere, so I'm not sure whether exact track gauge is vital. Suit yourself in the end, and let others suit themselves too.  And if you intend to do everything on a "scale it down exactly, regardless of difficulty" basis, then don't hold your breath waiting for a final result...

Your last sentence is valid, but it depends on what you want to achieve. Even in OO, Little Bytham  might not yet be finished if it was the work of only one person. For some, myself included, the journey is as important as reaching the destination. Some want the layout of their dreams, others are serial layout builders where the end result has to be achieved within a short time span and therefore take whatever steps are needed to achieve that. Some take a middle path, balancing what the use of readily available products with building those items that they need to achieve a more "realistic" result. Personally I prefer to see a small to medium size layout that is well observed and created, rather than a large one that has aspects that detract from the overall image.

 

OO and N products can provide the "shortcuts" that most modellers want, sometimes at the loss of a more realistic appearance. The difference between the Norman Solomon's track and the PECO points in the LB storage sidings shows that clearly. One of the biggest giveaways of RTL OO track is not just sleeper spacing and check/wing rail gaps but the gap between the switch blade and stock rail.

 

To quote a guest, who creates handmade watches, on Radio4's Start the Week "Mastering a new Skill" programme on 3rd April , "it is about minimising the imperfections". 

[Chuffer Davies]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Continuing on with the discussion.........

 

 imagine my having to make all the pointwork for this (there's no way I could afford for Norman to make over 90 copper-clad EM points!). 

 

 

I still wish I'd adopted EM all those years ago. 

 

It's, as always, down to personal choice. As is well known, mine will be to always model an actual prototype, whatever the gauge.........

 

 

Hi Tony,

this was my experience with the fiddleyard for Clayton.  Around 60 switch sets including double and single slips, all of which were built over a period of 3 months.  It takes me an evening to build one complete (copper clad) point including filing blades and V crossings and I think that’s typical for other builders also.  Plain track in the f/yard is SMP code 75.

Whilst not quite as extensive as the f/yard in LB it does show that it is still very achievable with the added advantage that the track standard is consistent across both the scenic and off scene areas of the layout.

Frank

[Michael Edge]

When building pointwork with copperclad timbers I allow an hour and a half per crossing, usually works out about right although some complex formations will take longer.

My latest system with etched chair plates takes quite a bit longer but raising the rail above sleeper level makes a big difference to the appearance, I don't use it for fiddle yard track though and I usually leave out half of the timbers as well.

[lee74clarke]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Continuing on with the discussion.........

 

I'm extremely fortunate in that Bytham's scenic-side trackwork was built/laid by the finest exponent of the craft in the land (or even the World?). 

 

 

 

Norman Solomon. 

 

Certainly, in the first of these two examples, I'd say it would be difficult to tell which gauge it was (it's fine scale OO, of course). 

 

Not everyone has the 'luxury' of having the master build the track (though it was part of a DVD series as well). 

 

Apart from a few adjustments, the trackwork seen above could equally well have been built in EM. But, when it came to the fiddle yard(s), imagine my having to make all the pointwork for this (there's no way I could afford for Norman to make over 90 copper-clad EM points!). 

 

 

 

 

 

I laid it all, but it's 'just' Peco Code 100 (for robustness and reliability).

 

In the wider view..................

 

 

I don't think the overall effect is that much different, whether it be OO or EM. 

 

Even in closer views...........

 

 

 

 

At track level, Norman's superlative track still looks well, even though it is only 'narrow gauge' (though the fast lines should be flat-bottom). 

 

The most important thing is the running - which has to be 'perfect'.

 

Speaking of perfect running.............

 

 

 

Back to Retford...............

 

I concede that in tight perspective, the wider (and more-accurate) gauge is apparent (as are the slightly-saggy baseboards), and I still wish I'd adopted EM all those years ago. (Both these locos, by the way, are RTR in their origins).

 

It's, as always, down to personal choice. As is well known, mine will be to always model an actual prototype, whatever the gauge.........

 

 

 

Good Afternoon Tony,

 

I trust you are well? I didn't reply to your B1 body request, although I have a spare, we're all packed up, waiting to move house. The plus side of that, is a very large garage, that I have already laid claim to. It will lend itself nicely, to a decent sized layout, which will just be standard OO gauge Peco track.

Whilst I follow these posts, for advice, tips & hints and such like, I don't kid myself that whatever I create, will be up to these standards. That's not to say I don't try to get things to the best standard I can, but everything has levels and I don't beat myself up if I can't match what I see on here. In terms of accuracy, I'm quite happy to run my old 1980's Hornby APT, with an A4 and the Tees Tyne Pullman. I might not even bother with a tail lamp ! Broad brush approach? More like a yard brush.

 I enjoy it though, and to me, that's the main thing. Speaking of A4's, I just went out to see 60007 on my lunch, running east out of Melton Mowbray, heading for Nene Valley I understand

 

[martin_wynne]

22 hours ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

DCC concepts offer PCB track kits with realistic looking brass chairs,

 

Hi Dylan,

 

Those brass chairs illustrated in your post are type L1 bridge chairs. They are used only on bridge waybeams, and within pointwork where there is insufficient space for ordinary chairs. They would look daft used for plain track, and don't actually fit on ordinary sleepers (they are too wide).

 

Here you can see such bridge chairs in use for pointwork where ordinary chairs wouldn't fit:

 

 

(This is "plug track" being developed in Templot for 3D printing. This is EM gauge.)

 

Why DCC Concepts are supplying bridge chairs for plain track is just as much a mystery as their daft 6-bolt fishplates.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.