Track
Moderators: 52D, Tom F, Rlangham, Atlantic 3279, Blink Bonny, Saint Johnstoun, richard
- Atlantic 3279
- LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
- Posts: 6534
- Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:51 am
- Location: 2850, 245
Re: Track
Having said I would make no further comments on this subject, then (to paraphrase Spike Milligan) here they are:
1. I assumed it was fairly common knowledge that SMP and C & L ready-to-lay plain tracks are available and that the real problem we were talking about was therefore the pointwork. I fear it is hardly any better to use a mixture of better plain track and Peco toy points, as the clash of rail styles, timber sizes etc may then add to the problem of the wholly deficient appearance of the Peco.
2. What's the special problem if a new, better version of a track system appears and makes the other version into the "old" one? Manufactuters and retailers have to move on all the time. Loco and rolling stock models become old stock in due course. Hornby in fact are now exploiting this phenomenon by offering the Railroad range for those who still prefer the establshed, older, more basic, "coarse scale" system. It could work with track too if the design of the new poinntwork were carefully worked out so as to demand in essence only a new moulded base and some clip-on bits. Why should track be specially protected from the process of evolution?
3. Bill is right about wheels too, some more than others, but that's not the subject of this discussion and I think it makes the argument for improved track no less strong.
4. I believe that the problem of flanges striking chairs is more proounced with C & L than with current SMP, owing of course to the height of the inside portion of the chairs. I have seen accounts of devices using razor blades at a controlled height to skim down C & L chairs . Why not use SMP in the first place? ALSO, an older friend of mine talks about "Mark 1 SMP" from the days when Colin Scoffin was involved and it was made in Cleethorpes. The chair height was, I believe, greater at that time so if Corfe's track is of sufficient vintage that may be the real problem.
5. As a further bonus, a bit more thought on the design of new moulded point bases might lead to a little bit of genuine flexibility being incorporated. I know this is blasphemy for those who know about real track, and you cannot of course have much flexibility or alter the crossing angle. A degree of flexibility is however a feature of the Tillig system, and an ability to create track formations that do not look like a wiring diagram but incorporate flowing curves without dog-legs and threepenny-bit-corners is highly desirable. The more the design of a new track can eliminate the need to think about building bespoke points, the more it is likely to sell. As an interesting side-shoot here, it is in fact possible to slightly flex the existing Peco points after strategic cuts have been made in the bases - I haven't tried it but I think John Houlden can tell you all about it if you ask him nicely.
1. I assumed it was fairly common knowledge that SMP and C & L ready-to-lay plain tracks are available and that the real problem we were talking about was therefore the pointwork. I fear it is hardly any better to use a mixture of better plain track and Peco toy points, as the clash of rail styles, timber sizes etc may then add to the problem of the wholly deficient appearance of the Peco.
2. What's the special problem if a new, better version of a track system appears and makes the other version into the "old" one? Manufactuters and retailers have to move on all the time. Loco and rolling stock models become old stock in due course. Hornby in fact are now exploiting this phenomenon by offering the Railroad range for those who still prefer the establshed, older, more basic, "coarse scale" system. It could work with track too if the design of the new poinntwork were carefully worked out so as to demand in essence only a new moulded base and some clip-on bits. Why should track be specially protected from the process of evolution?
3. Bill is right about wheels too, some more than others, but that's not the subject of this discussion and I think it makes the argument for improved track no less strong.
4. I believe that the problem of flanges striking chairs is more proounced with C & L than with current SMP, owing of course to the height of the inside portion of the chairs. I have seen accounts of devices using razor blades at a controlled height to skim down C & L chairs . Why not use SMP in the first place? ALSO, an older friend of mine talks about "Mark 1 SMP" from the days when Colin Scoffin was involved and it was made in Cleethorpes. The chair height was, I believe, greater at that time so if Corfe's track is of sufficient vintage that may be the real problem.
5. As a further bonus, a bit more thought on the design of new moulded point bases might lead to a little bit of genuine flexibility being incorporated. I know this is blasphemy for those who know about real track, and you cannot of course have much flexibility or alter the crossing angle. A degree of flexibility is however a feature of the Tillig system, and an ability to create track formations that do not look like a wiring diagram but incorporate flowing curves without dog-legs and threepenny-bit-corners is highly desirable. The more the design of a new track can eliminate the need to think about building bespoke points, the more it is likely to sell. As an interesting side-shoot here, it is in fact possible to slightly flex the existing Peco points after strategic cuts have been made in the bases - I haven't tried it but I think John Houlden can tell you all about it if you ask him nicely.
Last edited by Atlantic 3279 on Sat Apr 16, 2011 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
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.
Dec. 2018: Almost all images that disappeared from my own thread following loss of free remote hosting are now restored.
Re: Track
I fully agree. However, if the Peco point bases are cut they can be curved a small degree. The whole station and yard I modelled a few years ago was laid out on a curve as per the real thing. The 5ft radius points were curved to match but the 3-way, slip and diamond crossing were less easy to bend and I ended up with an inevitable short straight section opposite the diamond crossing. One just has to take care the wires on live-frog points do not become detached from the rails.A degree of flexibility is however a feature of the Tillig system, and an ability to create track formations that do not look like a wiring diagram but incorporate flowing curves without dog-legs and threepenny-bit-corners is highly desirable.
Although the newly laid track highlights the different widths and spacing of Peco and SMP track, it is definitely less obvious when ballasted and painted. Nevertheless, I go with Altantic that British bullhead points are the missing link in todays high spec RTR railway system.
- Atlantic 3279
- LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
- Posts: 6534
- Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:51 am
- Location: 2850, 245
Re: Track
Thank you Sir, you may have saved John Houlden from an interrogation on the flexing of Peco points. The flow of that track looks good.
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.
Dec. 2018: Almost all images that disappeared from my own thread following loss of free remote hosting are now restored.
- Dave
- LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
- Posts: 1690
- Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 9:33 pm
- Location: Centre of the known universe York
Re: Track
I agree points are a pain in the backside...if there were some good versions available in 00 I would give up EM and go back. all i want to do is run trains. As it is my stock is part EM and part 00 yet to be converted and I've been doing EM for years....it' a time thing, not enough of it.
Re: Track
On the subject of track.
Has anyone ever introduced "Cant " as per the real thing?
Or would a max superelevation of 6" be too much and result in a lot of stock falling off?
And as for all those yellow painted sleepers.
Has anyone ever introduced "Cant " as per the real thing?
Or would a max superelevation of 6" be too much and result in a lot of stock falling off?
And as for all those yellow painted sleepers.
-
- LNER A3 4-6-2
- Posts: 1241
- Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:43 pm
Re: Track
'Corse making hand-buily point work is easy if you have the right gear.............http://www.handlaidtrack.com/
.........and a bit less easy if you don't http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?o ... nstruction
.........and a bit less easy if you don't http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?o ... nstruction
Bill Bedford
Website: http://www.mousa.biz
Webshop: http://www.shapeways.com/shops/mousa_models
Blog: http://www.mousa.biz/info
Website: http://www.mousa.biz
Webshop: http://www.shapeways.com/shops/mousa_models
Blog: http://www.mousa.biz/info
- kimballthurlow
- GCR D11 4-4-0 'Improved Director'
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:58 am
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Track
I have used "cant" (or super-elevation as it is called by engineers) on layouts for a very long time by placing some electrical wire or thick carboard strips under the outer track on curves. It looks very effective. That becomes hidden by the ballasting.Bryan wrote:On the subject of track.
Has anyone ever introduced "Cant " as per the real thing?
Or would a max superelevation of 6" be too much and result in a lot of stock falling off?
And as for all those yellow painted sleepers.
6" is the correct height for super-elevation (=2mm). It looks great when a speeding train leans into the curve.
I have for a home layout, running older US brass stuff, now moved to Trix C track (fixed geometry and lengths) with built in ballast.
Stainless steel rails at Code 83 (83/1000") and long enough points to work perfectly, and I still have the ability to place 2mm wire or cardboard under the outer curve edge.
Have not tried with with my British stuff yet - Hornby and D&S.
regards
Kimball
Re: Track
As an ex BR / RRNE / Northern Track renewals / Eastern Track renewals / Fastline / Jarvis Site Engineer working day in day out on track renewal design planning and site implementation with the tampers. We never ever referred to Superelevation it has always been Cant.kimballthurlow wrote: I have used "cant" (or super-elevation as it is called by engineers)
regards
Kimball
Take a look at most PW Design drawings and see what is written in the data table.
Or even the name of the plates fastened to the sleepers indicating the value of the crosslevel to be applied. Cantplates.
Superelevation tends to be more used by that other breed The Highway engineer.
Re: Track
I picked 'super elevation' up from railway literature back in the 1950's so it is interesting to read the above comments. Could the super-word be used additional to cant in railway parlace by chance?
Re: Track
Yes, but not by the guys out on the track who work with it day in and day out as I said.
More by the rolling stock engineers.
Anyone any idea on its derivation?
More by the rolling stock engineers.
Anyone any idea on its derivation?
Re: Track
According to Chambers cant is "an inclination from the level" - there is also cant-rail "a timber supporting the roof of a railway carriage". Origin might be Dutch (kant) or German (Kante) which means corner.
In Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology, cant is a surveying term that means "Slope of rail or road curve, whereby outer radius is superelevated to counteract centrifugal thrust of traffic"
So cant is the slope, and superelevation the amount you raise the outer radius above the level - or?
Peter
In Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology, cant is a surveying term that means "Slope of rail or road curve, whereby outer radius is superelevated to counteract centrifugal thrust of traffic"
So cant is the slope, and superelevation the amount you raise the outer radius above the level - or?
Peter
- Blink Bonny
- LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
- Posts: 3946
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:21 pm
- Location: The Midlands
- Contact:
Re: Track
It was tried at Shipley on their "Wilton" layout with nearly 2mm of super-elevation. It looked excellent and suited all but the modern centre-motor type diesels whose gears ground alarmingly on the transisition areas.Bryan wrote:On the subject of track.
Has anyone ever introduced "Cant " as per the real thing?
Or would a max superelevation of 6" be too much and result in a lot of stock falling off?
Still, if you stick to "Proper" models (i.e. steam outline ) then this is no worries.
If I ain't here, I'm in Bilston, scoffing decent chips at last!!!!
Re: Track
What a difference a decade makes. I see that Peco makes code 75 bullhead track, and there is a brand "Legacy" that also has code 75 bullhead.
Hatttons had the Legacy on sale for less than £3 a piece (in packs of 12). I bought a pack. Just curious if anyone else had any experience with either brand, and whether people like them. I am in Canada, so I don't get to try before I buy or see the product on people's layouts. I am modelling early 1960s East Coast main line (I used to live in Lincoln). I remember a lot of rail was still bullhead when I was growing up. I might make a flat-bottom mainline, but I really like the look of the Legacy track I just received.
Curious as to what you folks think. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ULTdCA ... sp=sharing
Hatttons had the Legacy on sale for less than £3 a piece (in packs of 12). I bought a pack. Just curious if anyone else had any experience with either brand, and whether people like them. I am in Canada, so I don't get to try before I buy or see the product on people's layouts. I am modelling early 1960s East Coast main line (I used to live in Lincoln). I remember a lot of rail was still bullhead when I was growing up. I might make a flat-bottom mainline, but I really like the look of the Legacy track I just received.
Curious as to what you folks think. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ULTdCA ... sp=sharing
-
- LNER Thompson L1 2-6-4T
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 1:22 am
Re: Track
Hi Everyone
I too have tried some minor bending to a right hand express turnout/point ( whichever term you prefer ) and was able to successfully bend it just enough to fit where I needed it to go.
However, the main issue I discovered was that upon bending it was thst the switch rail which guides a teain to go over the straight of the turnout/point had overlapped the curved rail by a few millimetres, just enough that if a train ran over it either loco leading or stock leading if being reversed that derailments occured.
I realised that the switch rail needed to be trimmed in order to sit in it's recess in the rail so that locos and stock were finally able to run over the turnout/point without derailing.
On the subject of cant, I have tried to implement it on curved track but I can never get the transition exact to the point that it's a gentle transition from flat to canted and back again once the train exits the canted curved track.
Also, the problem I have had is knowing exactly how much cant a curved track section requires for it to be effective and noticeable again without derailments occurring.
I too have tried some minor bending to a right hand express turnout/point ( whichever term you prefer ) and was able to successfully bend it just enough to fit where I needed it to go.
However, the main issue I discovered was that upon bending it was thst the switch rail which guides a teain to go over the straight of the turnout/point had overlapped the curved rail by a few millimetres, just enough that if a train ran over it either loco leading or stock leading if being reversed that derailments occured.
I realised that the switch rail needed to be trimmed in order to sit in it's recess in the rail so that locos and stock were finally able to run over the turnout/point without derailing.
On the subject of cant, I have tried to implement it on curved track but I can never get the transition exact to the point that it's a gentle transition from flat to canted and back again once the train exits the canted curved track.
Also, the problem I have had is knowing exactly how much cant a curved track section requires for it to be effective and noticeable again without derailments occurring.
Re: Track
Isn't it true that we all have to make compromises when modelling 00 railways - starting with that big compromise on gauge. If we want to run mixed r-t-r then code 100 is a safer bet although code 75 does look better - tread widths, flange depths, all are compromises. Then couplings - even today's tension locks are huge when scaled up - but remember those early Triang ones that ran the full width of the wagon? I spent years fixing Peco Simplex ones because they were neater, only to spend more time taking them off again to mount the various smaller tension lock versions, while cussing under my breath that I should ditch the lot and stick with my US layout and its neat standard Kadees or McHenrys on everything irrespective of maker.
I think what I am trying to achieve is really "Impressionism" - aiming at a layout which gives the impression of a BR 1950's East Anglian branch - so a few of these new 6-wheelers find a place - I can't remember what they looked like then and I doubt if many others can now. The 3 foot rule is also good - if you can't see the detail from 3 feet forget it! It's the impression that counts.
Equally I have nothing but admiration for those who go to hand laid EM or EEM track, beautifully correct locos with all rivets in the right place etc, but I like playing trains, with too many locos 'cos I like them. I'd love DCC and sound but don't have the money, so I compromise.
Each to his own - we are a broad church.
I think what I am trying to achieve is really "Impressionism" - aiming at a layout which gives the impression of a BR 1950's East Anglian branch - so a few of these new 6-wheelers find a place - I can't remember what they looked like then and I doubt if many others can now. The 3 foot rule is also good - if you can't see the detail from 3 feet forget it! It's the impression that counts.
Equally I have nothing but admiration for those who go to hand laid EM or EEM track, beautifully correct locos with all rivets in the right place etc, but I like playing trains, with too many locos 'cos I like them. I'd love DCC and sound but don't have the money, so I compromise.
Each to his own - we are a broad church.