Making US Style HO Track Photo-Realistic, regardless of the "Standard"

[Andy Reichert]

The table has been cleared off. We have all the ties, spikes, tie plates, joint bars, frogs, throw bars piled up on the side waiting to be laid out in your favourite method.

 

>>> Edit. I seem to have created some confusion of my own by being a bit too gung-ho and especially tacking on the deleted wording above. So here is my revised version below to clarify my meaning. <<<

 

My personal goal for track work is to try and achieve "photo realism". I.e. the model stands up as credibly still realistic, when photographed and compared side by side with prototype photos. And that includes going as close up as "operators" and modern digital photos will show up. And that can also be reasonably well done, even if not using a "proto" standard. Only the flange way widths need be different.

 

I'm not being particularly "picky", because that is exactly the standard all the model magazines use when "reviewing" all the new model locos and cars when they are introduced. Just read how ruthless some magazine assessments are. But, I have noticed on so many magazine covers that, if they photograph a decent model loco on unrealistic track, the overall picture still becomes instantly recognizable as a obvious model.

 

The foundation of the methods I used myself was to deliberately bypass all "model magazine" articles on track modelling (ie. getting second-hand impressions - and third, and forth, and so on) and instead go directly to prototype pictures and tech drawings for source information. And basically start over in designing how to make track.

 

First that avoided the "geometry and configuration" changes introduced by track products intended for ultra tight radii "train sets" compatibility. And note that includes most of the NMRA's track related Recommended Practices or "RP's".

 

Second, I discovered all the various quite visible and working parts that get left off by the "magazine methods" for hand-laid track, and the different shapes the few big things that are typically included are.

 

It turned out that etching using stronger materials such as stainless steel, could make most of the small missing items quite inexpensively. And putting right many of the larger items could be done with some ingenuity and a CNC mill. And smart gluing in multiple places with modern adhesives can be just as effective as a few inappropriate and unrealistic soldered joints.

 

So now it IS possible to model track work to pretty much the same standard of realism as the latest RTR models. And the good news is that just about everything works as well for plain HO as it does for the Proto:87 equivalent.

 

The key to realizing what makes you comfortable, is to spend time looking at real track pictures, and deciding just how close you want your track to be like it. Otherwise you risk just making models of some else's model, who copied some else, who compromised after reading some magazine article, the author which guessed at what he'd never seen, etc.

 

And that's why so many US layouts have hand-laid track with absolutely no tieplates, soldered fixings to just 1 in 6 metallic looking ties with wide spacing differences and different thickness, with cuts across them, or pairs of gas pipe size spikes only on every fourth tie. Once you see the real thing, it suddenly doesn't look real.

 

Andy

[Prof Klyzlr]

Dear Andy,

 

Ok, I'll bite. Despite having most of my modelling stuff packed in prep for some house reno work, I've just unearthed 4x factory-fresh PECO code 83 #5 turnouts. What parts do I need to do a P87-level _Detail-conversion_? I'm happy to maintain factory-spec RP25-110/88 mechanical spec, and have a selection of 110 and 88 wheelsets to test both the "before" and "after" results with. Yes, I'm asking for a straight-up shopping list, a la a MR how-to-article "required parts list", and no, points will not be deducted for listing Proto87.com components/part #s :-) :-)

 

As a sidenote, I'd also be interested to know if the scale "throwrod" kits would fit a PECO turnout...

 

If it's of any use or reference, these turnouts were/are destined for a mix of C&O 1955-ish branch and modern-ish era CSX (the Chocolate), UP pac nw (oregon city), or SP/UP LA switching missions. Therefore, I figure there's an opportunity to do one pair "period" and one pair "modern" conversions.

 

So, if I've got the donors, and the motivation, what do I need to make it happen?

 

Happy Modelling,

Aiming to Improve,

Prof Klyzlr

[wagonbasher]

The table has been cleared off.

 

We have all the ties, spikes, tie plates, joint bars, frogs, throw bars piled up on the side waiting to be laid out in your favourite method.

 

Gentlemen. Start your hammers!

 

Andy

 

Now... Favourite method. That's my problem.

 

I am a uk em modellers that finds my current modelling project requiring light weight rail spiked directly onto timber sleepers. Military railway uk ww1.

 

I have the flat bottom code 55 rail and I can buy correct dimension ply sleepers in the uk and I see that I can buy different lengths of spike but I can't find a 'how to'. If it comes to it I will learn by trial and error but if there is a book or a web site it would love to know. Any help before I get my hammer going.

 

Andy

[M Graff]

For me it has been a lot of trial and error.....

I build US HO and HOn3, and the goal for me is to have well functioning, good looking track that suits ME!

;-)

I noticed that if I used flex track on the straights, my steamers would "hunt" a bit when running.

I therefore tried using 16.2 mm gauge on straights, and keep 16.5 in the turns.

It not only solved it, it works wonderfully as well!

I use16.2 mm gauge with 1 mm flangeway in the turnouts, which works very well with both code 88 and code 110 wheels, but if I used 16.5 mm and kept the flangeway to the same 1 mm? Well it works just as well with the wheels, but why use a different gauge from the rest of the tracks?

 

My method is to glue pre-stained "Northeastern scale lumber" ties to a rubberised cork roadbed, which holds spikes very good.

I mix in pcb ties on critical places like joints, turnouts and S-curves.

I ballast now, before laying track, as it makes it much easier to avoid getting ballast on the wrong places.

I use code 70 rail from Jomo jigs. And spike with either Micro engineering mini or micro spikes or my handmade ones made using 0.3 mm piano wire.

I use flex track where possible to save time and peace of mind.....

My inspiration for this way of laying track is from John Allen, who used only wheelsets as gauges when laying track. Which I assume made his gauge smaller than 16.5 mm. He used narrower than standard flangeways judging from photos.

My supplier of instructions and roller gauges are Railway engineering!

His track philosofy is that the wheels sets the gauge! And his gauges are made like that.

The details I will add are fishplates, tie rods and probably some rail support blocks on narrow curves.

 

This track allows ALL newer material with RP 25 and Code 88 wheels to be used. It is very derailment safe compared to the Peco code 75 I use in the hidden areas.

 

I will go back to work on the layout next week, so I will surely take some pics to show the difference.

[wagonbasher]

For me it has been a lot of trial and error.....

I build US HO and HOn3, and the goal for me is to have well functioning, good looking track that suits ME!

;-)

I noticed that if I used flex track on the straights, my steamers would "hunt" a bit when running.

I therefore tried using 16.2 mm gauge on straights, and keep 16.5 in the turns.

It not only solved it, it works wonderfully as well!

I use16.2 mm gauge with 1 mm flangeway in the turnouts, which works very well with both code 88 and code 110 wheels, but if I used 16.5 mm and kept the flangeway to the same 1 mm? Well it works just as well with the wheels, but why use a different gauge from the rest of the tracks?

My method is to glue pre-stained "Northeastern scale lumber" ties to a rubberised cork roadbed, which holds spikes very good.

I mix in pcb ties on critical places like joints, turnouts and S-curves.

I ballast now, before laying track, as it makes it much easier to avoid getting ballast on the wrong places.

I use code 70 rail from Jomo jigs. And spike with either Micro engineering mini or micro spikes or my handmade ones made using 0.3 mm piano wire.

I use flex track where possible to save time and peace of mind.....

My inspiration for this way of laying track is from John Allen, who used only wheelsets as gauges when laying track. Which I assume made his gauge smaller than 16.5 mm. He used narrower than standard flangeways judging from photos.

My supplier of instructions and roller gauges are Railway engineering!

His track philosofy is that the wheels sets the gauge! And his gauges are made like that.

The details I will add are fishplates, tie rods and probably some rail support blocks on narrow curves.

This track allows ALL newer material with RP 25 and Code 88 wheels to be used. It is very derailment safe compared to the Peco code 75 I use in the hidden areas.

I will go back to work on the layout next week, so I will surely take some pics to show the difference.

That is a great answer....

 

Some specifics that may have bun considered to obvious but I am happy to ask dumb questions.

 

Are those north eastern ties ply? Or does the American market use some different timber?

 

The spikes are pushed? Or hammered? Pre drill or brute force?

 

What length of spike are you using? Even the 1/4 inch ones must penetrate the track bed after passing through the cork?

 

I like the use of copper clad where it counts, is that the same thickness as the timber ties?

 

Thank you again

 

Andy

[M Graff]

That is a great answer....

Some specifics that may have bun considered to obvious but I am happy to ask dumb questions.

Are those north eastern ties ply? Or does the American market use some different timber?

The spikes are pushed? Or hammered? Pre drill or brute force?

What length of spike are you using? Even the 1/4 inch ones must penetrate the track bed after passing through the cork?

I like the use of copper clad where it counts, is that the same thickness as the timber ties?

Thank you again

Andy

The ties are regular wood. I think it is called sugar pine?!?

I push the spikes with a converted flat nose plier. I bought a cheap small one with no serrations in the jaws.

It is flat nosed and then I filed a 45° groove on the jaws. That groove holds the head of the spike while pushing it.

I push the spike halfway in, then I use the nose of the plier to push the rest in.

The ties are so soft so there is very little force needed.

The spikes go down into the cork as well, and that is only good as it holds the spikes better.

The PCB ties are a bit thinner than the wood ties, so I shim with card beneath them.

:-)

[wagonbasher]

The ties are regular wood. I think it is called sugar pine?!?

I push the spikes with a converted flat nose plier. I bought a cheap small one with no serrations in the jaws.

It is flat nosed and then I filed a 45° groove on the jaws. That groove holds the head of the spike while pushing it.

I push the spike halfway in, then I use the nose of the plier to push the rest in.

The ties are so soft so there is very little force needed.

The spikes go down into the cork as well, and that is only good as it holds the spikes better.

The PCB ties are a bit thinner than the wood ties, so I shim with card beneath them.

:-)

Fantastic, thank you

 

Andy

[steve1]

Micro Engineering Code 70 for Duncan's Mine II. Works with Code 88 wheels.

 

steve

[highpeak]

In response to the Prof's point about detail parts for his turnouts, if he wants to change the frogs to a cast type then Andy has parts on his proto87.com store site. Details West also make some castings that you can find on their site at http://www.detailswest.com/ I am not sure whether they would just drop into a Peco turnout or not. I think Dr. Gerbil-Fritters used them in a turnout improvement project not so long ago.

Details West make a number of other useful track detailing parts including angle joint bars. They are a bit on the chunky side and benefit from a bit of refining, especially if you want to use them with code 70 rail. Andy does some etched parts that have nice nut/bolt detail but lack the angle. The alternating nut/bolt business appears to have started quite a while ago, the reprint of the 1926 book on trackwork that NMRA put out says the alternating pattern was pretty commonplace as a way of equalising the stresses at the joint.

Another useful source for detailing parts for turnouts is Central Valley http://www.shop.cvmw.com/SwitchTrackDetailParts-3-1603.htm. The fret includes some joint bars, reinforcing strips and rail anchors as well as a nice switch stand.

If you can get hold of good pictures of turnouts for your chosen road and period (Andy has a nice set of detail shots of an older turnout on his site) you will see a wide variety of methods of anchoring rails and holding the various bits together. A lot of it can be reproduced with bits of stryrene strip and Geoff Kent style rivets/nuts/bolts or the NBW castings and moldings available from various suppliers. The bigger challenge I found was finding good pictures to try to work from.

 

My own approach to track ended up being based on the Central Valley parts. I liked the fine detail of spike heads and tie plates on the tie strips and turnout bases. I am not a great fan of gluing stuff together but the Barge cement/MEK mixture does seem to be doing a reasonable job so far. The temperature/humidity in my layout room doesn't vary that much but it will be interesting to see if warmer weather causes any issues. The glue does seem fairly flexible. I did add a few strategic spikes when I started but decided the glue was worth a chance on its own.

For turnouts I followed the methods described by Joe Fugate at http://siskiyou-railfan.net/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?5125 I added details to the PCB ties and once painted you have to look quite closely to see which ties are which, really close up the lack of grain detail gives the game away. I try to put the gap in a location where it will be hidden by a tie plate.

For the operating mechanism I use Fast Tracks Bullfrog machines because they are quite inexpensive and I didn't want electric operation. The stretcher bar uses a method described in Scalefour News 181 by Mike Norris, basically a piece of PCB tie material on edge with brass rod run through a hole in it, then bent vertically and horizontally before being soldered to the rail. Painted black the PCB is fairly unobtrusive and is further disguised with a piece of the plastic stretcher bar from the CV fret. It's not perhaps the ultimate in fidelity but it's pretty robust and is within my ability level to make.

[Andy Reichert]

In response to the Prof's point about detail parts for his turnouts, if he wants to change the frogs to a cast type then Andy has parts on his proto87.com store site. Details West also make some castings that you can find on their site at http://www.detailswest.com/ I am not sure whether they would just drop into a Peco turnout or not. I think Dr. Gerbil-Fritters used them in a turnout improvement project not so long ago.

Details West make a number of other useful track detailing parts including angle joint bars. They are a bit on the chunky side and benefit from a bit of refining, especially if you want to use them with code 70 rail. Andy does some etched parts that have nice nut/bolt detail but lack the angle. The alternating nut/bolt business appears to have started quite a while ago, the reprint of the 1926 book on trackwork that NMRA put out says the alternating pattern was pretty commonplace as a way of equalising the stresses at the joint.

Another useful source for detailing parts for turnouts is Central Valley http://www.shop.cvmw.com/SwitchTrackDetailParts-3-1603.htm. The fret includes some joint bars, reinforcing strips and rail anchors as well as a nice switch stand.

If you can get hold of good pictures of turnouts for your chosen road and period (Andy has a nice set of detail shots of an older turnout on his site) you will see a wide variety of methods of anchoring rails and holding the various bits together. A lot of it can be reproduced with bits of stryrene strip and Geoff Kent style rivets/nuts/bolts or the NBW castings and moldings available from various suppliers. The bigger challenge I found was finding good pictures to try to work from.

 

My own approach to track ended up being based on the Central Valley parts. I liked the fine detail of spike heads and tie plates on the tie strips and turnout bases. I am not a great fan of gluing stuff together but the Barge cement/MEK mixture does seem to be doing a reasonable job so far. The temperature/humidity in my layout room doesn't vary that much but it will be interesting to see if warmer weather causes any issues. The glue does seem fairly flexible. I did add a few strategic spikes when I started but decided the glue was worth a chance on its own.

For turnouts I followed the methods described by Joe Fugate at http://siskiyou-railfan.net/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?5125 I added details to the PCB ties and once painted you have to look quite closely to see which ties are which, really close up the lack of grain detail gives the game away. I try to put the gap in a location where it will be hidden by a tie plate.

For the operating mechanism I use Fast Tracks Bullfrog machines because they are quite inexpensive and I didn't want electric operation. The stretcher bar uses a method described in Scalefour News 181 by Mike Norris, basically a piece of PCB tie material on edge with brass rod run through a hole in it, then bent vertically and horizontally before being soldered to the rail. Painted black the PCB is fairly unobtrusive and is further disguised with a piece of the plastic stretcher bar from the CV fret. It's not perhaps the ultimate in fidelity but it's pretty robust and is within my ability level to make.

 

Joe Fugate basically uses the CV base as a substitute for buying the Fast Tracks jigs. He probably needs the PCB ties toi hold everything together, because he substitutes the traditional hand-laid track approach of using UK style (non GWR of course) continuous flex points and closure rails instead of the normal US prototype hinge points. And those of course wouldn't be held in place very well by glue and the CV soft plastic rail positioning grooves.

 

The US (UP and BNSF at least) has introduced a lot of flex point turnouts as part of the new higher speed infrastructure, since about 2000 on. But most of those are complex modern beasts with pandrol clips and lots of heavy duty metal parts instead of the traditional simplicity and spikes.

 

Andy

[Andy Reichert]

Since this thread has been pushed almost instantly and completely off topic, I'd appreciate someone telling me how I can  rename it more appropriately before I leave it.

 

Andy

[highpeak]

Off topic? This thread has a laser-like focus compared to some! Maybe you should be aware for a lot of threads RMWeb = Random Musings While exchanging banter.

 

 

I thought this one was doing pretty well to be honest. You mentioned "favourite method", surely most people have offered theirs. The good Prof asked for some guidance, there's been a bit of that as well.

[298]

I tried hand-spiking track, but gave up after a few ties as my efforts looked really poor, and I couldn't see the point in trying to claim kudos or NMRA achievement programme brownie points for doing something that looks worse than just using flexitrack.

 

My current favourites are Fast Tracks turnouts and Shinohara code 70, I'm still to fit etched brass fishplates and realise my turnouts are lacking in detail,which is something that Peco are also aware of....

[wagonbasher]

Since this thread has been pushed almost instantly and completely off topic, I'd appreciate someone telling me how I can  rename it more appropriately before I leave it.

 

Andy

Sorry, didn't,t mean to drag the topic 'off topic'. If I am honest I have no idea what the thread was about. I can't suggest an alternative name without understanding the initial post. At least it has some traffic now and some useful responses even if they are not what you intended.

 

I will leave my responses here and let you have your thread back, thanks to all that helped me out.

 

 

Andy

[Andy Reichert]

Sorry, didn't,t mean to drag the topic 'off topic'. If I am honest I have no idea what the thread was about. I can't suggest an alternative name without understanding the initial post. At least it has some traffic now and some useful responses even if they are not what you intended.

 

I will leave my responses here and let you have your thread back, thanks to all that helped me out.

 

 

Andy

 

Please . You have nothing to apologize for.

 

IMHO, You can't take a subject off topic by just asking honest questions about it.

 

It's the off-topic "answers", that are in reality positioning of absolutely different positions, that are the problem. Pausing to answer those, just confirms the change in topic and loses the intent (and the extra off-topic back and forth then dilutes any helpful information about the original thread).

 

Andy

[M Graff]

Then start a blog, the tools are here....

[Andy Reichert]

Then start a blog, the tools are here....

 

I have a web site. That enables me to present all the information I have to create or share in parallel. So everything is accessible all the time to anyone who cares to look.

 

The thought of spending extra time to spin it out in serial form as entertainment instead of reference, doesn't appeal to me, given I have more model engineering I still want to do than I lkely have lifetime left for!

 

And simple explanatory arthmetic that often contradicts a lot of long-term hobby myths, usually doesn't take more than a few lines to lay out.

 

Andy

[M Graff]

But if you want to get more understanding and/or interest for proto scale modeling in 1:87 you really need to both share LOTS of mouth watering info, pics and other bits, plus showing that the parts to do it ARE available, and affordable?!?

And the biggest problem that I see, is that there are no easy way to get locomotives with the right wheels.....

If I was to invest the time, money and commitment needed to go Proto:87, (and believe me, I am the type of person to get interested...) then I would need to know that it is possible from both a time and engineering standpoint!

[Prof Klyzlr]

Dear Michael,

 

Your last post sounds like it's been placed in the wrong thread, sounds more like a "how to promo P87" comment... ;-)

 

Happy Modelling,

Aim to Improve,

Prof Klyzlr

[M Graff]

Well, how can track be "photo realistic" and not be to Proto standards?

[Prof Klyzlr]

Dear Michael,

 

It sound contradictory, but (how can "Photo Realistic" =/= Proto XX mechanical standards) is actually very easily demonstrated/explained.

 

Factor in scale perspective, telephoto lenses, that most layouts are not viewed at "scale height" for a trackside-standing human,
that most "proto images" which scream to be modelled are composed of scenes in context, not just up-close plan-or-long-axis view hero-shots of a single turnout,

 

and many other typical photographic criteria,

and we can easily point to any number of images which are undoubtedly "of a prototype scene" and yet present a visual image which appears severely not "proto xx (wheel/rail/flangeway/mechanical) spec".

 

Said another way, model exactly what you see in the photo, and the model will undoubtedly visually match the photo,
but not have/need-to conform to proto xx wheel/rail/flangeway/mechanical spec to do so.

 

Take the current and past threads RE rough-track, shortline operations, and even small/micro layouts. In each case, proto images have been presented that, if modelled "to the photo", would seem to support and even encourage "not to scale" modelling.

 

I know I personally have deliberately levered such "proto image appearance" to get away with murder on my layouts
(shortening up spur capacities, tightening the curves within a scene, using not-correct gauge equipment,
using "shorty cars" to fit the pic where full-length cars arguably should be used, etc etc).

 

Please don't mishear me, I personally enjoy and have gotten what I consider "my best modelling work" when modelling "direct from a proto scene/image".
(EG "Brooklyn : 3AM". "Nine Mile", "Yallah 2").

 

However, in each case, the modelling result has taken many many liberties,
and yet when viewed at the appropriate scale altitude and angle, has apparently successfully passed the "pick 5 things which are different" test 100s of time over in direct comparison to the base inspiration donor image...

 

(I post the proto image on the layout fascia at shows, give guideance as to "where to stand/look to get the appropriate view",
and then stand back and wait for the punters, kids particularly, to run up screaming "I found more than 5 things wrong!".
Those punters who actually stand there and study the image/model tend to take it as a direct challenge,
IE they actively want to find 5-things out-of-place, just to prove that they could,
but I'm still standing here waiting...)

 

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

[highpeak]

Well, how can track be "photo realistic" and not be to Proto standards?

The revised "spec" for the thread did seem to allow that the compromises inherent in the NMRA standard could be tolerated: "And that can also be reasonably well done, even if not using a "proto" standard. " The standard for plain track is about the same, give or take some gauge widening on curves that I doubt would be that discernable to the eye.

 

"The key to realizing what makes you comfortable, is to spend time looking at real track pictures, and deciding just how close you want your track to be like it."

With that very much in mind when I started planning my layout, I decided I wanted a bit more detail than the standard approach of spikes and wooden ties offered, and I did not want to use ready to lay. Neither of my local hobby shops stocked code 70 flex track anyway and since my proposed layout isn't that big (space available is more or less 12' by 12') hand laying track was acceptable.

 

I spent some time looking at whether old methods could be adapted. Spikes can be trimmed a bit (although they are still too big), but I was unable to come up with any reasonable way of adding tie plate detail. Since none of the experiments was satisfactory I won't bother describing them. So I looked at the methods for plain track on Andy's web site

 

I then ordered a trial pack of CV tie strips, and some components from the Proto-87 stores to compare the two different methods. I did not buy any jigs, mainly because for the purposes of the experiment the cost was not justifiable nor did I think the jigs would be needed to build a few inches of track. Unfortunately the experiment went nowhere largely because the code 70 rail base was too wide to fit in the etched tie plates. Maybe this was an error in the order, maybe the rail is overscale as to the width of the foot, but it meant that no track could be laid using those tie plates. Greg Amer noted the same problem in his blog, so maybe it's a problem where the etchings are dead scale, but the rail section is wrong.

 

Anyway, the point was pretty well moot because I quickly came to the conclusion that the CV tie bases looked excellent offered a good level of detail relative to the time spent laying the track. The main drawback for me in using them is the smell of the solvent and the Barge adhesive that is used to glue the rails. Finding a source for Barge wasn't easy either until I went into the local cobblers shop and discovered he stocked it. I bought a big can of MEK Substitute from the Home Despot after an attempt to buy it at the local Ace Hardware store drew a blank, the staff having no idea what MEK is.

 

While my layout is not designed to be portable I did decide not to lay continuous track across the different sections so that if I move, the layout could be dismantled. At the ends of the boards I used a couple of Fast Tracks PCB ties to make sure the rails would stay in alignment (still a bit paranoid about gluing rails down). The gaps in the ties are filed close to the rails and disguised with tie plates salvaged from CV ties so that it's not too obvious that the ties are PCB. Once painted and weathered, they blend in pretty well.

 

So in the end my efforts correspond to the Fast and Easy approach on the Proto 87 stores site. I added joint bars using a variety of parts, concluding that the ones that look most like the ones Maine Central generally used were the Details West parts. These needed a bit of refining to fit code 70 rail, and are probably a bit overscale but do incorporate the angle which etched parts (either Proto 87 or Brassmasters) don't. (I realise the Brassmasters are for UK work, but I just happened to have several frets of them for comparison.)

 

SInce I am nowhere near ready to ballast the track I have laid, there's not much point taking any photographs of it. You can see the products on Andy's website and on the Central Valley site. CV make three different types of tie strip to represent different prototypes, while the Proto-87 jigs can be used to build in a bit of randomness in tie spacing and alignment.

 

I am happy with the way the track looks, weathering it takes me a lot of time and I have no idea how realistic it is because I am color blind and have a hard time deciding whether I'm using the right shades. (I discovered my color blindess quite by accident reading a car magazine article to do with spray painting that had some test cards. The optician confirmed with a proper test that I am definitely color blind, a more common condition than you would think, especially in men.)

 

I think with a big layout any of the hand laying methods might be too time consuming, but it's probably worth adding joint bar detail where appropriate because they do tend to stand out a bit.

[dave1905]

 

I think with a big layout any of the hand laying methods might be too time consuming, but it's probably worth adding joint bar detail where appropriate because they do tend to stand out a bit.

 

Search for images of "Jeff Otto railroad" and you will find pix of Jeff Otto's Messabi Northern, about a 3000 sq ft basement filled with a double deck layout, all handlaid.

[highpeak]

That's an amazing feat of stamina and patience, whether it was all laid by one guy or done by a team. I wonder how many man-hours went into the track?

My back is usually telling me to call it quits after half an hour...

[CVSNE]

Agree it's an amazing feat. I certainly admire what Jeff has done with his trackwork. Of course, time devoted to trackwork means less time for scenery/structures etc...

Large layouts are by their very nature exercises in compromise. Sometimes one of those compromises is the purposeful decision made to not super detail track or play in the realm of proto87.

 

Marty