Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,202 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
whilst penning a contribution to another thread, it occurred to me that one of the ways to overcome the apparent [and doubtless necessary] gap between vehicles, especially coaches...without resorting to close coupling technology, .....would be to ensure the viewer only saw those vehicles in a position where the ends might be closer together anyway?

this might mean, instead of nice straight platforms, for example....a slight curve, concave to the viewer, would bring the nearside...or 'viewed' side, of stock end nearer to each other?

with a shallow enough curve..ie very large [by our standards] radius curve.........the ends ought to be brought close enough, that the far side gaps might not be too obtrusive?

the downside is that, where platforms are concerned, there will needs be a bigger gap tween track ad platform edge, to allow for overhang?

However, if on the blind side, will it be noticeable?

just a thought?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
560 Posts
That's a great idea and one that Brian and I were going to employ on Milldale but the width of the station didn't allow enough room for the other parts of scenery that we wanted to have in that area.
We have set-track curves either end of the layout and hiding these required a fooling or at least distracting the viewer. On the right hand end we've just put a box over the curve to put the "Layout background" and other stuff that might be of interest, we did this because it has always been planned that the layout will be extended one day so detailing would be pointless here. The left hand end we've done as the picture show and it works quite well we think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,202 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
The one difficulty I have with track like Peco..or indeed setrack..is the difficulty of making pointwork LOOK like it is tailor-made to fit the site...more or less.

in other words, I struggle to get peco pointwork, with flex track, to ''flow?''

as Doug pointed out, with a gentle convex curve, the disappearing point can be hidden by things other than the usual tunnel or bridge?

the only difficulty is pointwork, as above......which is where home-made, tailor made track comes into its 'own?'
 

·
No Longer Active.
Joined
·
13,319 Posts
QUOTE (alastairq @ 26 Aug 2007, 01:51) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>in other words, I struggle to get peco pointwork, with flex track, to ''flow?''

the only difficulty is pointwork, as above......which is where home-made, tailor made track comes into its 'own?'

Know exactly what you mean - it's diffecult to get any ready made points to "flow" (you could always use the Tillig ones - they are slightly flexible). That's one advantage of modelling things "across the water" - may station & other layouts look like they were built using 1 : 1 scale setrack ! (Which could explain why many UK modellers are critical of european layouts with the "setrack" look - authentic but a bit alien to UK eyes.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,202 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
that..and squeaky-clean ballast?

as a long time model enthusiast....who at one time got a severe attack of the influences from a guy, whose name I forget [and who, I believe, lived in the US]...who penned a series of articles on his O gauge French prototype layout.

it was all very early steam era......and enchanted my imagination.....maybe it was his tyle of writing, or the simplicity of construction of his models, I don't know...but I made a 2 barrel wine wagon in HO from his inspiration...plus, commenced a rake of typical french open wagons...cannot recall what protoype, but I still have one plasticard body.

got it....was it ''Clochemerle?''

anyway, having digressed, one aspect of continental railways, and modelling, that I associated with the breed, was the frequent usage of 3 way points, and double slips.

to the extent, these items were available freely from continental model ranges from very early on....certainly pre-dating anything from Peco!
 

·
No Longer Active.
Joined
·
13,319 Posts
QUOTE (alastairq @ 26 Aug 2007, 09:41) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>that..and squeaky-clean ballast? one aspect of continental railways, and modelling, that I associated with the breed, was the frequent usage of 3 way points, and double slips.

to the extent, these items were available freely from continental model ranges from very early on....certainly pre-dating anything from Peco!

Another aspect that UK modellers are critical of is, as you say the ballast - you only have to look at some typical european mainline track to see why ready ballasted trackage is so popular. A lot of UK trackage is getting that way too - look at the CTRL.

I am old enough to remember many UK layouts featured in RM that used PECO trackage & points, but if the modeller wanted a double slip & did not want to scratchbuild one, then it was the Fleishmann one in brass.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,837 Posts
An earlier contributor mentioned that peco points don't look naturally flowing. They can be made to curve very slightly if you cut the plastic bases underneath. You must not try to flex them very much. The tie bar no longer moves perfectly parallel to the tie-bars either side but this doesn't matter. If you only give them the slightest 'tweak' to make them no longer exacly straight, then this does make them look quite good in the right location.
 

·
Just another modeller
Joined
·
9,983 Posts
Hi Brian
You said: "That's one advantage of modelling things "across the water" - may station & other layouts look like they were built using 1 : 1 scale setrack ! (Which could explain why many UK modellers are critical of european layouts with the "setrack" look - authentic but a bit alien to UK eyes.)"

Nope, its the tight radii on many EU layouts - the same struck me with the large Maerklin loft layout in another thread - lots of incredible long straights and STILL it has sudden U turns at the end... and tight radius pointwork: The EU turnouts may be standardised but they aren't over tight in radii.

Having said that, The real answer is to handmake the points - it really is very much easier than modellers think and it makes a massive difference to the look of a layout. it has another big advantage too where space is at a premium, making the pointwork to fit the scene ends up giving more usable space / far better use of space.

Personally, I prefer Steel rail and make all my own so I've never used a Peco point and never will....

EU and US are better served by track Mfrs such as Tilling and Micro Engineering - even by the new Peco code 83 which is passable for a US layout. But as for standard Peco code 100 and 75... its truly rubbish.... Looks so worng its unbelievable modellers accept it, check rails that don't check, over-wide gaps at common crossings etc etc... Those responsible at Peco should be put up against a wall and shot!

Richard
 

·
is asleep
Joined
·
758 Posts
QUOTE (Richard Johnson @ 26 Aug 2007, 16:17) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Having said that, The real answer is to handmake the points - it really is very much easier than modellers think and it makes a massive difference to the look of a layout. it has another big advantage too where space is at a premium, making the pointwork to fit the scene ends up giving more usable space / far better use of space.

Personally, I prefer Steel rail and make all my own so I've never used a Peco point and never will....

But as for standard Peco code 100 and 75... its truly rubbish.... Looks so worng its unbelievable modellers accept it, check rails that don't check, over-wide gaps at common crossings etc etc... Those responsible at Peco should be put up against a wall and shot!
I have to ask Richard, how many metres of complex pointwork have you actually made for yourself instead of buying? I'd love to see pictures of your scissors and a double-slip or two, in fact I'm sure there are many modellers eager to hear how your first three-way point went...

Goedel von Baited Again
 

·
Just another modeller
Joined
·
9,983 Posts
Goedel, you asked:

I have to ask Richard, how many metres of complex pointwork have you actually made for yourself instead of buying? I'd love to see pictures of your scissors and a double-slip or two, in fact I'm sure there are many modellers eager to hear how your first three-way point went...

Response: WHY are you being such a tosser? Despite your lack of common courtesy I'll respond.

I haven't bought a point for more than 20 years. I've probably built several hundred. FYI I teach point making and also supply the parts for point making. How many have you made?

I don't have images resident online so can't post them here, but if you'd like to see my trackwork by all means You or a more courteous list member can send me an email and I'll send some attached images.

You can then post them here with your apolog.

Id so so myself but as far as I can see I can't without a web presence for them, and I'm not about to set one up to please you. If you've specific preference I'm about to take more photo's, so just ask and I'll do it tomorrow.

FYI, My current layout is of the MR in the 1930's from Settle to Blea moor, and has approxiamately 120 handmade points in the visible area, plus around 50 in the staging or fiddleyard, including many slips, several diamonds and several interlaced and three way points.

The layout has complex pointwork as the Midland railway did not allow facing points on the main during the period I model, so many areas such as Settle had complex pointwork even for a simple town station.

all the trackwork is complete, using bullhead rail of course.

Richard
 

·
Just another modeller
Joined
·
9,983 Posts


Hello all... I was asked to show an example of my trackwork so here it is. This is one image from the selection of photo's uploaded to the members Gallery: This image includes an interlaced (irregular 3 way) turnout a the south end of the Craven Lime company at Stainforth Sidings on the S&C.

The track is 16.5mm gauge and uses steel bullhead rail and the chairs etc are by C&L. Flangeways are 1mm or slightly finer, and current bachmann and Hornby driving wheels will work fine with them as long as back to back dimensions are adjusted a little. (This very postively surprised me).

The Steel rail has proven excellent - no cleaning needed for good running and loco's pull about 20% more than on NS rail. Of course, its not great where atmosphere isn't well controlled - I'm lucky enough to have the space for this layout in an area where there are no extremes of damp, humidity or temperature.

There are a few more images in the forum Gallery which will show something of the scope of the layout / plus a couple of one of my kit/scratchbuilt loco's, and one or two of Ribblehead viaduct made to full scale size....

To keep on track with the "curves to deceive" theme, the curves are all quite large, with even the largest of them having transitions so the overall layout "flows" quite well visually. Example: the tightest point is a curve between Craven lime and Ribblehead - this is 5' radius at the tight point, but starts out at over 12', with the result that the whole of the curve looks very wide.

(BTW - Ribblehead viaduct is gently curved like the prototype and is 18 feet long on a 1/2 scale mile radius by the way)

This use of transitions works well with smaller radii too, and really helps the look of a layout.

I hope you enjoy them. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Richard
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,151 Posts
Hi Richard,

You are truely blessed with, according to me, is the most important thing in this hobby : SPACE.

Perfect prototypical turnouts you have made. Brilliant.


Cheers
Baykal
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,202 Posts
I'd like to make the observation regarding space, and 'prototypically correct' turnouts?

Whilst I accept that turnouts with crossings to protoype 'angles', whilst essentially needing more room than we are used to using with the likes of 'peco' and set track.......don't actually need THAT much space.

It is perfectly feasible to use prototypical trackwork within a confined space........what is usually avoided is any tendency to 'cram' as much track as possible into the smallest area.

The 'protoype' was often confined in space as well...and prototype turnout formations often reflected this.

Even the most modest of railway spenders found apparently 'complicated' track formations that allowed efficient operation was a better use of money than attempting an alternative, but 'normal' layout....with doubtless additional land and operating costs.

thus, if intent on making one's own trackwork, but being lumbered with a small area to work within, there is an ideal, and often very prototypical, excuse to make non-standard (and very impressive!) turnout and crossing work to achieve one's aims.

pointwork which would either be non-existent, or very expensive and space-consuming, if reliant on the products of the track manufacturers.

On the other hand, the opposite could apply just as effectively?

by confining oneself to protoype turnout dimensions, within a confined space, this might lead to a more 'simple' track layout?

ie 'less' is 'more?'

with the vastly improved appearance of the finescale trackage, this would overcome the paucity of track space itself?
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top