[LisaP4]

Hence my comment on Triang Super 4 track, it certainly wasn't fragile, yet it had scale sleepering and didn't have that awful moulded "ballast".

And I haven't a clue why you think P4 track is more fragile than anything else, as it's the same thing, just the rails are in differant places and there's less sleepers.

 

[Rail-Rider]

Again we have the difficulty of sturdiness vs appearance.

I have to agree that sturdiness must take precedence for the kids and mass manufacturers have that balancing problem to deal with. Having said that, I would still disagree that fine scale track cannot be mass produced - it certainly can be. But, for instance, that SMP track I picture above would be no use, as it stands, for 'set-track type applications - kids can be brutal little creatures! Pre-setting it into a sturdy base would make it more suitable, but I think the very fine rail section could still be a problem for unskilled hands. But it's always going to be contentious as to where to draw the lines between 'kid-proof' and 'adult-acceptable'.

Roco made what I consider to be possibly the best HO 'set-track' of all with their 'Rocoline', beautifully pre-ballasted and tough, but at a price. I'll try to post a pic of one of their turn-outs in a while.

 

[Rail-Rider]

ROCOLINE TURNOUT

Note the slimmest of solenoids, which is completely hidden beneath the ballast section - yes,the lower picture is the underside!

If you look VERY carefully, you might see the barely visible line, just outside the ends of the sleepers, where the ballast shoulder sections can be removed for infilling between double tracks etc.

Rail height is 2.1mm which would be equivalent to Code 83 I think. Pretty good check rails, wing rails and frog, imho, though certainly not up to P4 standards!

It isn't 'right' for OO and for various reasons, will probably not please either Lisa OR Gary! But for an HO 'set track ', I think this would be extremely hard to better - assuming your pockets can handle the pain!

 

[Gary]

I was doing a bit of research into Exley coaches and found this article by accident. Within the article it makes it very clear that it would be impossible to model certain types of British locomotive in HO. And yes, reference is made to finescales within the article.

QUOTE Greenly makes a second point: while it is possible to get away with a great deal in a model of an inside-cylinder engine, when Walschaerts valve gear has to be modelled, the restricted width available in 3.5mm between the wheel face and edge of a scale-width British footplate would make the task almost impossible. Indeed Sydney Pritchard of PECO, himself an H0 modeller between the wars, later maintained that certain types of British outside-cylinder locomotives simply could not be built in H0.

A HISTORY OF 00 GAUGE - Part I
The Years of Experimentation 1920-39

http://www.doubleogauge.com/history/history.htm

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[LisaP4]

Again your talking of back in the age of wide wheels.

 

[Gary]

There is a lot of discussion at Pat Hammonds MRE about narrow wheels and the issues of locomotives coming off the track. I for one whole heartedly support the current width of wheel if it means my locomotives and rolling stock run perfectly on my less than perfect track. It does not harm the look one bit. This talk about narrow wheels simply is not being realistic and consumers would be put off the hobby if their lcomotives kept coming off their track.

How often do you see exhibition layout locomotives derail?

I bet I witness a minimum of 10 examples of this at the Warley show!

Yet on the Hornby stand the locomotives on their exhibition layout run all day without derailing (little fingers excepted).

This really does prove the point!

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[Rail-Rider]

QUOTE It does not harm the look one bit.
Obviously it does harm the look at least a bit or we would have NO disagreement and thus no discussion here!

For 'the look', it is all a matter of degree of wheel wideness and where each individual draws their particular line. What is acceptable to some people is quite clearly not at all acceptable to others. There is no point whatever in either camp continuing to try to beat the other one into the ground. This will never change anything but will cause friction by driving the views even further into opposing corners.
QUOTE This really does prove the point!
At this point, one might wonder exactly what the point is.
To 'beat' the opposing view?
That is completely pointless.
Some people value just running trains all day regardless of other considerations and that is good.
Others have a greater desire for a realistic fine scale appearance and that is equally good.
There is PLENTY of room for both of these - and all the shades in between - without getting into a scrap over it.

 

[Dennis David]

I think this thread has pretty much run it's course. What I would like to see is more information from groups like P4 that work to mitigate some of these issues and also some actual examples of work being done.