Track

This forum is for the discussion of railway modelling of the LNER and its constituent companies.

Moderators: 52D, Tom F, Rlangham, Atlantic 3279, Blink Bonny, Saint Johnstoun, richard

User avatar
52D
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 3968
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:50 pm
Location: Reallocated now between the Lickey and GWR
Contact:

Track

Post by 52D »

Following some scathing comments on here regarding the actual track that is commercially available would any one like to post how they have improved the look of RTR track and what they would reccomended.
I have seen posts about removing sleepers to improve the look and also noted that ballasting makes a lot of difference, I open the floor to you Gents for comments.
Hi interested in the area served by 52D. also researching colliery wagonways from same area.
User avatar
richard
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 3385
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:11 pm
Location: Wichita Falls, Texas
Contact:

Re: Track

Post by richard »

I think ballasting is an essential - and I don't care for that foam underlay. The N scale club I'm in uses Peco 55. Although it doesn't look like US track (and many complain it doesn't look quite right for the UK either), the thing is it works and is robust enough for exhibition modelling. Code 40 and true code 55 is available to US profile but it would not last very long. There are often compromises in scaling down the real thing, and this is one of them: Make it look perfect, or make it run well?


Richard
Richard Marsden
LNER Encyclopedia
User avatar
52D
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 3968
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:50 pm
Location: Reallocated now between the Lickey and GWR
Contact:

Re: Track

Post by 52D »

I was talking to one of the Aln Valley Railway chaps about a siding that was put in during the war and i was thinking of modelling a similar set up where there was the extensive use of concrete pot type sleepers, about a spacing of one timber then three concrete sleepers. I think commercial track cut then correctly painted to represent concrete where needed and fully ash ballasted would look good alongside standard but improved and ballasted track. (oo gauge).
Hi interested in the area served by 52D. also researching colliery wagonways from same area.
User avatar
Dave
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 1679
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 9:33 pm
Location: Centre of the known universe York

Re: Track

Post by Dave »

Following on from the scathing attacks regarding track, I would remind people that model railways is a hobby for the enjoyment of that individual, if they are happy with what they do it is none of our business to complain, especially in such terms as have been expressed on this forum. Remember not everyone is willing or able to build track, or convert locos to run on EM or P4.

I run EM gauge, started with Trix 3 rail, went to Triang Super 4 then Peco, but I would defend the right for anyone to run their trains on any type of track they choose.
Last edited by Dave on Fri Apr 15, 2011 11:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Multiprinter
LNER Thompson L1 2-6-4T
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:29 pm

Re: Track

Post by Multiprinter »

Quite right Dave. Each to their own and live and let live.
User avatar
Blink Bonny
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 3946
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:21 pm
Location: The Midlands
Contact:

Re: Track

Post by Blink Bonny »

Personally, I just can't be bothered making the stuff, but then again I do collect Tri-ang and the odd bit of Hornby-Dublo or Trix if its within my price range, being a tight-fisted Yorkshireman and all that, and I do rather like to run it.

It would be nice to have a range of "Universal" track with OO sleeper spacing but,to be fair, when ballasted and suitably painted the Peco stuff doesn't look too bad.

How hard is it to make points? I build engines after all...
If I ain't here, I'm in Bilston, scoffing decent chips at last!!!!
User avatar
Atlantic 3279
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 6527
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:51 am
Location: 2850, 245

Re: Track

Post by Atlantic 3279 »

In OO gauge, no matter how carefully balasted and weathered, Peco style track cannot to my eyes ever look realistic. It is not necessarily a matter of the small details and definitely not of the strict technical aspects of the geometry of the curves and crossings, but a simple one of overall proportions of the most obvious components of the track, ie. the rails and the sleepers (or timbers). Even for an HO interpretation of the track, in keeping with the HO gauge, for typical British practice in the 20th century, prior to say the 1980s, Peco sleepers are vastly too crowded, and even if spaced out more they are way too slim and not long enough. This aggravates the toy-like, "not OO proportions" look of the track, and when combined with code 100 girder-rail the effect is even worse.
Although I have successfully made my own pointwork from PCB strip and rail, I would not hesitate to say that this is highly time-consuming and it can be difficult to get both a cosmetically and functionally satisfactory result unless you take great care and build up at least some "specialist" experience. Unless you also go to special lengths to keep the soldering very discrete, and to then add cosmetic rail chairs (which I do not think are particularly cheap, easy or quick to add) then your results will have only the right general proportions and will be noticeably deficient in details compared to track with a moulded base or the even more elaborate and expensive self-build track systems.
Whenever this topic crops up, it tends in my view to be hi-jacked by those who, I believe, have a totally unrealistic and unreasonable desire to see NO improvement in OO track unless that amounts to a complete conversion of the manufacturers to EM/P4 scale, including full prototypical features of the track, regardless I presume of whether the resultant sizes of pointwork would fit the space that most modellers want to work in, regardless of the likely cost of such track, and regardless too of the limited budgets and skills of established modellers who can't or won't either convert their existing model collections, or sell up (to whom?) and start again.
My aspirations are much more modest, perfectly feasible I believe, and likley to be attractive to most modellers and to a genuinely open minded manufacturer, although I'm not sure we have one and it doesn't appear to be Peco! A vast improvement could be effected by the manufacturers, without shutting the door on those with existing Peco layouts but who might be tempted to experiment with something better and maybe convert by stages starting with just the newly laid areas of track. All that is necessary is to continue with the existing Peco Streamline geometry of pointwork, but produce the track with new moulded bases that have "generic" or "typically" British sizes and spacings of timbers. Ignore oddities like interlaced sleepers or other esoteric design featrures of some of the pre-grouping companies' pointwork. Mould chairs that are not highly detailed and individualistic in style but are also generic, and sufficiently substantial to be taken at a glance for either supports for bullhead or for flat-bottomed rail. The use of flat-bottomed code 75 rail could thus continue in the designs, saving the costs of re-tooling to handle bullhead rail. Once painted with rust/muck colour it would be fairly hard to tell without close inspection. A less obtrusive arrangement at the tie-bar area, and metal check rails throughout would also be desirable. I believe most modellers interested in a finer scale appearance, and even some who don't yet notice the poor-appearance problem, would jump at the chance to have these improved generic pieces of model pointwork. Of course, EM/P4 die hards oppose this tooth-and-nail, as it doesn't meet their criteria and would inevitably dilute the stimulus for some modellers to switch to EM/P4.
It appears to me that Peco don't WANT to recognise this particular case for improvement, as by catering correctly for the British modeller they would be producing track with diminished overseas appeal. Perhaps they would like us to believe that making these changes would have to involve all sorts of expensive and difficult alterations to the purported black-magic of their manufacturing process? Yet they cheerfully launched an entire new range of USA style HO track. I suspect they consider it easier to deal with the UK modeller using mushroom-theory, hence the repeated prominent adverts in the modelling press making dubious claims about the "realism" of their track.
The situation really calls for a serious competitor to be interested in the manufacture of UK style track, as opposed to another Euro-Yankee compromise tracksystem. Maybe if more modellers would make a polite request to that nice Mr Kohler at Hornby we might stand a chance of nudging his firm into action?
More than enough said I think, so I won't add any further comment to this deabte, even if somebody chooses to make stridently opposed or downright nasty remarks about my views. I'm sure there's no advantage in turning debate into what used to be referred to on another website as a "froth" .
Most subjects, models and techniques covered in this thread are now listed in various categories on page1

Dec. 2018: Almost all images that disappeared from my own thread following loss of free remote hosting are now restored.
jwealleans
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 4208
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:46 am

Re: Track

Post by jwealleans »

I confess to being a bit of a luddite about track. Part of that is practicality - the handbuilt track on Corfe at Ormesby is constantly in need of attention. Part is lack of interest - as you can tell from my WB I'm more of a stock man. Part is the fact that I've not laid any track for some years (although I hope to at least build a test track once the WB is fully insulated). I can appreciate good trackwork - the EM layout Uppingham which I occasionally operate has some outstanding trackwork but I've never developed the urge to produce any.

You can do a certain amount to help the appearance of Peco track: try this article by Andy York for some ideas.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index. ... o-code-75/
User avatar
52D
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 3968
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:50 pm
Location: Reallocated now between the Lickey and GWR
Contact:

Re: Track

Post by 52D »

Atlantic/JW those are the type of comments i was looking to encourage, track seems to polarise otherwise sane people into raving loonies i hope we can have a rational debate here. Thanks to everyone who has posted and please others contribute.
Hi interested in the area served by 52D. also researching colliery wagonways from same area.
mick b
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 3727
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 4:43 pm

Re: Track

Post by mick b »

Code 75 Peco Points at the front and SMP track at the rear in the below picture. Its OO and adequate for my needs and to my eye looks ok AND with minimum of fuss.
Like JW I much prefer building Stock to fighting with Track and Points !!
1.jpg
As to Peco no idea of their financial status at the present time?.How much demand would there be for "better" looking track in the UK ? and how long before Peco would see a return on the costs involved. Any current stock in retail shops and at Peco would presumably need discounting to sell on as well . I doubt the dealers or Peco would be very happy in the short term either !
User avatar
coachmann
GCR D11 4-4-0 'Improved Director'
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:52 pm

Re: Track

Post by coachmann »

All Peco needs do it remind itself it is a British manufacturer and make bullhead track and points for British modellers. Trouble is this company is so much up its own backside, it is deaf!

SMP provides very good bullhead plain track of British appearance. It is matching points we are short of. I used Peco points simply because they are hastle-free. When ballasted and painted, the whole ensemble looked pretty good to me.
WEB SMP track.jpg
User avatar
Autocar Publicity
NER C7 4-4-2
Posts: 847
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Track

Post by Autocar Publicity »

I use Peco code 75 and am reasonably happy with it. Having said that, I would agree with most of the comments made above and I think Atlantic's identified the commercial problems. I would like better-looking track, whether we're talking sleepers or gauge and personally, I would not care to wager any money on whether I will go EM/Scalefour or start modelling in Scaleseven...

With my dioramas, I like to cut the plastic spacing off the sleeper assembly and respace the sleepers - not perfect but an easy option which does make a [quick] difference, especially if you repaint the sleepers as well.

Re 52D's comment re (NER?) track, I think Mike Cook (York show big cheese +) has actualled modelled this, Sinnington if I remember aright? I think there was a piece in the Modeller some years ago.
User avatar
manna
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 3790
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 12:56 am
Location: All over Australia

Re: Track

Post by manna »

G'Day Gents

I don't have a problem using PECO track, I have been now for nigh on 40 years, but it would be nice to be given the option ! of a British bullhead track system, surely it can't be THAT hard to make :mrgreen:

manna
EDGWARE GN, Steam in the Suburbs.
jwealleans
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 4208
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:46 am

Re: Track

Post by jwealleans »

If I remember correctly there are two other sources of ready made OO gauge track... Coachmann and Mick have both mentioned SMP above. Which is the other?

The reason I ask is that there are two lengths of whatever-it-is on Corfe and whenever I test stock on there the Hornby wheels (new Chinese Hornby wheels) run on the chairs.

The compromise of SMP and Peco points sounds like a sensible approach to me.
Bill Bedford
LNER A3 4-6-2
Posts: 1241
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:43 pm

Re: Track

Post by Bill Bedford »

jwealleans wrote:If I remember correctly there are two other sources of ready made OO gauge track... Coachmann and Mick have both mentioned SMP above. Which is the other?
C&L
The reason I ask is that there are two lengths of whatever-it-is on Corfe and whenever I test stock on there the Hornby wheels (new Chinese Hornby wheels) run on the chairs.
Overscale wheels look just as bad as overscale rails
Post Reply