The track conundrum

QUOTE (Doug @ 9 Mar 2007, 21:27) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>What is a serious modeller?

Someone that is happy to put up with an out of scale OO loco with boilers designed to house 1940's chunky electric motors or chassis made of solid metal with suspension detail moulded onto the sides. Fixed ponies and flangeless wheels...

I think that modelling is all about compromise. Compressing reality into the limited space we have involves quite a bit of compromise. We can't get too obsessed with one aspect of the hobby, when we have glaring inaccuracies in other areas.

"Someone that..." - I think you mean 'Someone who...".

My reply was in the context of track. In that context I meant 'serious modeller' to mean someone who is not happy to accept current RTR track and is prepared to make an effort to obtain better track.
Yes, I agree, modelling is about compromise. Some people will compromise to different degrees on some things and not others. Those who are 'really serious' tend not to compromise much at all and go for P4.
The point I was making was that anyone who is 'serious' about British track would go for SMP/C&L and not Tillig because the latter doesn't look anything like British track. No doubt I will get a barrage of replies from those who disagree because they use Tillig!

Unfortunately, you chose to widen the discussion by bringing in a whole collection of elements which were not the topic of conversation. People tend to have a problem when others appear to use a term (such as 'serious') without qualifying themselves and it usually results in those people getting upset when they find they become 'left out' in the definition. I apologise for my lack of qualifying my statements. Hopefully by bringing the context back onto track ONLY, that clears up any misunderstanding.

Graham Plowman

QUOTE (Doug @ 10 Mar 2007, 20:59) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Thanks for correcting my English Graham...

You say, Tillig doesn't look anything like British track. What does British track look like?

I never said Tillig looked British. I and others model with it because of it's superior running qualities that the pesky little electric locos appreciate over the likes of Peco.

Doug,

Probably the best way to find out what British track looks like is to get hold of one of the PWI manuals on the subject, for example 'British Railways Track'.

In summery, the differences are:

1/ Chairs - totally different
2/ Geometry - different
3/ Check rails - different
4/ Sleeper spacing - different
5/ Sleeper sizes - different
6/ Sleeper arrangements - different

Compare them with a real UK turnout at your local railway station and you'll see what I mean.

It is an interesting concept that you "and others model with it because of it's superior running qualities that the pesky little electric locos appreciate over the likes of Peco". The issue of sleepers and spacings in 00 does not appear in that statement which makes me wonder whether all the talk on this subject really is concerned about sleepering or whether all people want is just reliable running through a better designed turnout - in other words, people don't care what it looks like, so long as it is reliable.

Personally, I use Peco code 75. Not perfect either, but when carefully laid and correctly wired in combination with correctly B2B's wheels, I have had complete reliability: http://www.brma.asn.au/ShowPage.aspx?P=417...46358752C202027

Graham Plowman

QUOTE Nathan wrote: A useful page but you could probably improve those graphics a bit. What program did you use to export them?
Sorry I'm a bit late in replying, only just logged on and reviewed items..
Nathan, You're kidding surely?? Improve the graphics??? They are 100% from where I view them (Work and Home) Two assumptions here... 1) You're talking about the background colour etc then its one chosen from the umpteen available. Or 2) Your talking about the drawings, if so then how can a simple line drawing be improved without making them far to complex, hard to understand and very slow to load at the viewers end? The drawings I firmly believe are simple to understand and show exactly what's being discussed.
For info...The base programme is MS FrontPage 2003. Drawings are prepared in MS Visio and Copied & Pasted into the FrontPage sheets.

As for the Tillig track and point work, I have to agree with Graham... Its just not British!!!
Anyway, what's all this nonsense anyway? There we are arguing about "My points are better than your Points" and "My track is better than your track" etc . but within a few feet were seeing totally non prototypical curves!!!

QUOTE (Nathan @ 9 Mar 2007, 22:32) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>OK, hold up a minute guys!

Rail-Rider has a good point with starting out with a Hornby set - I will end up with code 100 track. Still, this doesn't mean that I'll necessarily have to extend this set in terms of track as it's just an oval.

I'm not quite getting the hang of why Code 75 is better in some people's opinion.
I understand what electrofrog points are at this stage, but what sort of extra wiring are we talking of here?

1/ Code 75 looks a lot better
2/ Things run a lot better on it - most RTR stock these days runs better on code 75 than 100
3/ Its constructed to allow proper live frog wiring

Extra wiring see: http://mrol.gppsoftware.com/livefrogwiring.asp

These are simple modifications for which code 75 has been purposely made to enable.

Graham Plowman

Apart from Tillig Elite, Peco Streamline code 75 and 100 do not look British either!

What Tillig gives you is something reliable, less clunky looking, with decent switch rails on the points.
Even at code 83, it looks finer than Peco code 75.
In fact code 83 is pretty close to scale size for modern mainlines anyway.

As far as chairs go, modern track doesn't have them!!!

The rail fixings on Tillig will more than do for Pandrol clips. This is 4mm/ft after all and not everybody is so fussy about unseen detail at normal viewing distances. For many it's a case of "If it looks right, it is right".

The only problem with Tillig is the H0 sleeper spacing that also afflicts Peco Streamline.
On balance, like for like Tillig looks far better. I wouldn't be paying all the extra money if I didn't think so.

C&L/SMP 00 track doesn't fit the bill as modern era track, unless it's in old sidings or a remote branch line.
It certainly doesn't look like anything near my local main lines.

You could say, for the vast majority sticking with 00 16.5mm track, it's Hobson's choice!

QUOTE (pedromorgan @ 13 Mar 2007, 09:22) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Peco do the pandrol clips that you can use with C&L if you want to do modern track.

Peter
Then you are talking about handbuilt track and not RTR flexi. That's quite different.

QUOTE (Oakydoke @ 13 Mar 2007, 19:02) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Apart from Tillig Elite, Peco Streamline code 75 and 100 do not look British either!

What Tillig gives you is something reliable, less clunky looking, with decent switch rails on the points.
Even at code 83, it looks finer than Peco code 75.
In fact code 83 is pretty close to scale size for modern mainlines anyway.

As far as chairs go, modern track doesn't have them!!!

The rail fixings on Tillig will more than do for Pandrol clips. This is 4mm/ft after all and not everybody is so fussy about unseen detail at normal viewing distances. For many it's a case of "If it looks right, it is right".

The only problem with Tillig is the H0 sleeper spacing that also afflicts Peco Streamline.
On balance, like for like Tillig looks far better. I wouldn't be paying all the extra money if I didn't think so.

C&L/SMP 00 track doesn't fit the bill as modern era track, unless it's in old sidings or a remote branch line.
It certainly doesn't look like anything near my local main lines.

You could say, for the vast majority sticking with 00 16.5mm track, it's Hobson's choice!

I think Oakydoke's comments above are pretty representative of the debate regarding 00 track.

I haven't had any problems with Peco code 75, but evidently, others have had problems with Peco and hence Tillig gets a preference.

Several comments above draw my attention:

- The rail fixings on Tillig will more than do for Pandrol clips
- This is 4mm/ft after all and not everybody is so fussy about unseen detail at normal viewing distances
- For many it's a case of "If it looks right, it is right".
- for the vast majority sticking with 00 16.5mm track, it's Hobson's choice!

Not wishing to criticise anyone, but my observations of all of these statements is that they are fairly representative of the hobby. Many people are evidently throwing down track in blissful ignorance of technical details, geometry, what it represents or whether it has any form of accuracy. Clearly, it doesn't matter to them and they are quite happy to run 00 models on continental outline track modelled in HO scale, despite the fact that it looks less British than the products they are moving from.

It makes me wonder what all the debate about 00 track (ref sleepers and spacing) is when quite clearly, a lot of people really don't care what their track looks like so long as it is reliable!

Could it be that the answer is for Peco to make an accurate model of British track in H0 scale ?

I really can't see the point in any 'better 00 track' all the time people are building layouts on 4x8 boards - you simply can't build anything accurate in 00 in that space with curve rad 1 and 2. 'better 00 track' will simply look very strange with such tight radii and probably, Tillig does too!

Graham Plowman

Hi there to all the participants on this topic,

I suppose everybody has a valid reason for using a certain type and code of track and has the right to defend his choice and decision. But at the end of the day it is a matter of availability and affordability. Is it right to critisize a fellow modellers layout just because he is not using so-called "scale correct" track? Aren't we scaring off newcomers to this forum and the hobby?

I have seen the comments made about sleeper types, sleeper spacing and arrangements, geometry, rail fixings etc etc and it would appear to me as if we are now heading towards a serious case of rivet counting and in the process taking the fun out of the hobby.

Picture this. A modular HO/OO-club is setting up a layout for an exhibition. There are several member owned modules in the layout using different makes of HO/OO track. Are the purists/rivet counters in the club now going to insist that those members not using their so-called scale correct track withdraw from the exhibition? We can take it a bit further. Most if not all of the building and structure kits by all the HO/OO kit manufacturers are selectively compressed. If therefore then we are so serious about scale and prototypical correct track, why do we accept the not scale correct building and structure kits? And this selective compression applies to many scratch built buildings and structures too.

There is also the argument about using scale-correct RP25 wheels. I have no problem with modellers using RP25 wheels - it is their own personal choice which they are entitled to. I have however noticed that rolling stock with RP25 wheels derail more frequently than those fitted with the standard continental type wheels, especially over points and through double slips. And to be quite honest, at a normal viewing distance one can hardly if at all tell the difference between a RP25 wheel and a standard continental type wheel.

There are several close coupling devices for rolling stock available from various manufacturers and we have no problem in using them because they do what they are supposed to do and work well. But are they prototypically and scale correct?

I fully support the desire to build a scale model as close as possible to the real thing with whatever materials and accessories are commercially available, but one should not allow that desire to dominate the fun and enjoyment that initially got you involved in the hobby.

There are most certainly a place for everybody in this hobby - the purists as well as those in it for the fun and enjoyment the hobby has on offer. Do not step on each others toes even if you do not agree with a fellow modeller's way of thinking. If we really have to sit down and check everything involved in this hobby for being "scale-correct", where is this going to leave the hobby?

Keep on sharing this hobby with others and remember to take your pinch of imagination and keep the fun in the hobby.

Kind regards.

Johan

QUOTE (Graham Plowman @ 13 Mar 2007, 23:03) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Clearly, it doesn't matter to them and they are quite happy to run 00 models on continental outline track modelled in HO scale, despite the fact that it looks less British than the products they are moving from.

Graham Plowman
By those products do you mean Peco code 75 ?

Do you think Peco track looks more British than Tillig ?

Peco looks no more like British track than Tillig. They are both H0; Tillig modelled on a German prototype and Peco is not modelled on anything in particular.

I believe your response is a thinly veiled attempt to pour scorn on those who choose to model in 00.
To suggest those who are taking the time and effort to obtain better looking track, without wanting to go down the EM or P4 route, are simply "throwing down track in blissful ignorance of technical details, geometry, what it represents or whether it has any form of accuracy." is unfair and insulting.

I would have thought those making the effort to improve the appearance of their track would be the last people to be employing radius 1 and 2 curves on a 8x4 roundy round layout.

Having decided not to go down the P4/ EM route or to handbuild track and points, Peco appeared to be the only option for me until I tried out some Tillig track. As Peco doesn't look right enough with those horrid points, I've opted for something that makes a better fist of it. A compromise, like so much else in modelling.
Naturally I'd much rather have something better and closer to the prototype and so it appears would others, hence the current discussions on this "better RTR track". If Peco were to make it, I'd be delighted to buy it.

We've rapidly drifted well beyond your initial questions haven't we, Nathan
It often happens - I hope we haven't lost you, altogether.

Without a baseboard, it seems certain that you are going to start out with a set and early extensions to that will likely be with similar set track of some sort. Electro-frog points definitely aren't a consideration at this stage and neither are the finer detail aspects of continental/UK track practice. Someone suggested earlier that ready availability is a primary consideration in the early stages and I would fully agree with that, too.

It's only when, or even IF, you decide to use a baseboard that the other considerations might arise and, even then, they might not, if you are happy with your initial choice. So, I suggest forgetting about finer scale track until closer to that time, else you might never get started at all! When the possibility of a baseboard arises, we can always discuss it again.

In the meantime, I'd concentrate on which set you are inclined to kick off with. I would also start collecting catalogues (and price lists!) of those companies whose track has been mentioned, to allow a reasonable assessment of appearance and affordability. There is nothing quite like seeing products 'in the flesh', but well illustrated catalogues (and web sites) are the next best thing. You can have a very enjoyable time just looking through them and they should help to arrive at decisions. Have fun

Well said Rail-Rider.
Talk about trying to confuse and put off a beginner!

I'll still stand by my comments I made earlier QUOTE what's all this nonsense anyway? There we are arguing about "My points are better than your Points" and "My track is better than your track" etc . but within a few feet were seeing totally non prototypical curves!!!

For very practical reasons I'd always use live frog if possible.

Given the (regrettable) absence of ready made track with British sleeper spacing , you are going to end up with HO track . You won't , in the first instance , be able to use conventional point motors

I wasn't aware of the various items dbclass50 lists , but frankly you'll do a lot better with these than with more Hornby or with Peco Streamline code 100 deadfrog . They will also be less coarse than Hornby or Peco (Roco I think is to NMRA standard) and will therefore give you better more reliable running with modern stock. They should also be code 83?

(I note Johan de Villiers comments about RP25/110 wheels - but I'm afraid the problem lies with very coarse points such as Hornby and Peco Setrack, not with the wheels . On properly compatible points - such as those listed by dbclass50 running should be good)

While I wouldn't go for "moulded ballast" in my own circumstances (I'd use glued down ballast) its going to look much better than no ballast.

The Roco and Flischmann stuff will be more expensive , but will be more "future-proof" for you than either Hornby or Peco Setrack.

It certainly won't look half as good as handbuilt points with SMP/C+L flexible , well ballasted , but that's not a relevant consideration in your position

I completely agree with the comments made after mine
But do check prices.

I definitely should have omitted the word "definitely"

DB, have you any more information on "Geoline"?
This is a new name to me and it has my ears all pricked up!
The (Roco) in brackets sounds as though you may have some insight on what is going on there
Come on - spill some more beans!