Which track?

short [ie tight ''radius''] points are the spaced-starved modellers' dream........but have to be used in context with the type of stock in use.....in the prototype, where space is a problem, and tight curves/points are essential,locos and stock are severely limited as choice as well [ My most recent example being the complex Devonport Dockyard Railway??...only 4 wheel locos useable, only short wheelbase or short bogie stock useable, etc].

the ultimate space-saver point in my view was the Peco Streamline small wye point.

The problem is....many folk modelling railways want their cake, and to eat it as well.

They want nice mainline locos, and stock, all finely detailed, with something approaching 'scale' wheel sizes, for appearance sake...yet they haven't really got the space to operate that stock appropriately.....on track and point radii which is suitable, ie what the fancy locos and stock can happily negotiate.

It's all down to that wheel/checkgauge problem.....

short points can be realistic if modified..and in the right [railway] context.

but if reliability of performance of stock through a point is essential, then the larger the radius [for want of a better description] the better...this also enables more appropriate crossing clearances.

[it's a bit like expecting a stretch limo to successfully complete a slalom course, which is a tight squeeze for a SMART car.]

Horses for courses?

If planning a new layout, consideration has to be given to the type of stock one is running.......and whether this sits well with the amount of track one wants to lay.

For nearly a century, modellers have had the same problems of space, and how to best deal with it, or disguise the lack of.

WHen I first got into railway modelling, the then-current advice regarding how to go about building that model railway took into account not just the geometry of the track plan, BUT ALSO the types of stock which would best perform/look good on that trackplan, given the limitations of space and radii.

Hence, a typical, ''starter'' layout, for example, on the then-typical 6 foot by 4 foot baseboard, with what are now, ''set-track'' points and curves, woud also carry the proviso that locos should be small tanks, or 0-6-0 tender locos, [maybe a 'small' diesel...short bo-bo, for example......]....goods stock should be short wheelbase stuff, a brake van being about the limit in wheelbase.....[modern goods wagons being out of place and too long]....and coaching stock wold be advised to be 4 wheel, or 'short' bogie stock.As far as 'prototypes' were concerned, and era..this left the potential modeller well and truly stuck in the realms of pre-grouping, or pre-BR branchlines......which is probably why GWR branches were popular, stock to match...the old autocoach and 0-4-2T or pannier tank, for eg.

most rtr coaching stock of the day was short in prototype length anyway.

So an A4 with mk 1 stock would be totally inappropriate........despite the fact it may be a strongly desired model.

I had the same issue when I built my young son's layout...and oval, basically, without straight sides...in about 1 1/2 metres by 1 metre and a bit....folding too.

No problems with running 0-6-0 tanks..although Bachmann's were less 'forgiving' of the peco setrack turnouts than Hornby's offerings...I found some short coaches, so the platform gaps would remain within reasonable bounds....but.......he found Bachmann Mk1 coaches ..and insisted on a few....all had to be slightly modified to allow greater bogie swing without having the wheels foul the underframe......patforms shaved to suite the much-increased ovehang

I suggested a hornby dmu...the 110[?] the old green one...or was it blue, I forget....particularly because it was a SHORT model, so would not look too askew on the curves, or require the platforms shaving back once more....hence perform more reliably.........BUT NO!

it HAD to be a bachmann 158, just like the one's that run through our local town........

which model looks faintly ridiculous [although it runs reliably].....just advise passengers to remain seated and not use the toilet......they'll fall off the end....oh....and the platforms were shaved yet again....

MIND THE GAP!!

if space is truly a severe handicap......why not learn how to construct one's own points, doing what the real thing did, and use more complex-looking pointwork...ie a bit like 'stacking' ordinary points, on top of each other?

slips, single and double, inside and outside, or in between.....after all...a 'point ' is but a crossing , and a set of blades [the 'point' in reality]........more 'complex' P&C work is simply, fitting crossings and point blades..with bits of rail in between......and on the prototype, surprisingly one was more likley to find 'complex' [read, 'space-saving'] point and crossing work in places like goods yards, loco facilities, industrial sites, etc, than out on the 'main line' so to speak.

Consider the use of points on a curve, to save space, rather than squeeze in a 'short ' point.....

or......reduce the amount of trackage you actually want....''less-is-more??''

***Hi Tim

Alex answered it pretty eloquently:

Personally I dislike the look, but my advice was in relation to running reliability issues in the main.

Basically you will restrict the size of loco that can run reilably and murder the realism in the look of anything bigger than a dock shunter or 4 wheel wagon with short points.

However practicality does have to rule so if you can't live with less track and bigger radii, a couple of simple rules will help:

Never use short points for a crossover (they make a sharp S curve which is destined to give trouble) or directly off the main where larger loco's will use them.

Never use one directly off the end of a curve.... same problem as a short point crossover.

Keep them for sidings and storage area so layout look isn't compromised.

regards

Richard

QUOTE (TimP @ 7 Feb 2009, 17:53) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Richard - you advised to avoid short turnouts completely - yet in most of our space constrained lives they are v useful for sidings etc. is it your experience with running qualities or is it the unrealistic look you don't like?

Tim
(currently planning a new layout)

QUOTE (slot.jockey @ 5 Feb 2009, 22:45) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Have you thought about using C&L flexitrack with Tillig points

I did actually and discounted it purely on the sleeper spacing discrepancy originally ie pointwork with silly sleepers and track that was "right".

For my own layout that I have commenced I need the coarseness of the RTR track and point work as any number of modelling friends may well want to run their own items and there are a number of currently available RTR items that the flanges are too coarse and hit the finely moulded chairs on the C&L. For example Dapol's milk tank stock all hit the C&L chairs, not enough to de-rail but enough...

Having said all that, do I build to coarse 16.5mm standards so as to not re-wheel stock and adjust back to backs or do I say stuff it, if you run on my layout this is what you need to do?

I want to be able to take an item of motive power or two over to a friend in the BRMA on at least a monthly basis so will have to decide soon so I can finalise the track plan. There is something appealing about going Tillig all around though and making some minor cosmetic changes and spending time on ensuring the basllasting and other trackside features are well executed such that the track is not the focus.

Hi again Chris,perhaps,given all the replies to your question you could get some setrack and a few points etc..and have a little play for a few months to see what you want and what problems you may encounter. Im new to this great hobby of ours and if I started my layout again I would build my own track given the experience and problem solving I've had to tackle during the last 14 months. Put it another way,get yourself a little layout but dont make it so you cant alter or replace the trackwork,then when you decide which way is best you wont have too much trouble starting again.Good luck and I hope I've given you some good advice

ooohh dear.........

I am using a mix of Peco code 75 points and SMP track with Tillig rail joiners.It is only on a small branch terminal plank but it will be interesting to at least have a small running layout again after a number of years .I may well start a blog with my various alternative track plans and why I finally (I think ) arrived at the present version . My own theory is that if you enjoy running model trains then probably stick to Peco or Tillig or whatever .If you want scale appearance and have the time and capability to produce "scale" track then go for it .My next plank will certainly feature SMP or C+L 00 track as it looks better but it would have been tricky using it with small radius points that my Terrier and M7 will and can run over in a modest space .my next layout will be on a longer board .I dislike having a join in the middle of pointwork or halfway through a station .The number of layouts I see with an earthquake crevasse through the platforms and track is disappointing after all that effort to make it look realistic .
If track is well ballasted and carefully painted then even code 100 can look pretty good.I always find once you get up and running then its just fun and hang how realistic it all is .If you want to impress other model railway fans and take a lot of photographs then that scale look becomes more important.
Martin

I have, in fact I have the number 6 and 8 straight turnout jigs and the number 8 curved turn out jigs. While these jigs assit in making an excellent turnout they are completely wrong for anything other than North American prototype. I've tried all sorts of track over the years, Peco, Walthers, Shinohara, SMP, C&L, Atlas Tillig and totally hand laid. The best I have ever managed was hand laid on spine roadbed with easements. This is the best way to go but it is terribly time consuming, took me a year to lay one freight yard. Now I'm using Peco code 83 with the Fast Tracks turnouts as this will give me the best result that is a compromise for all the different locos I run, British, US, Australian and even German.

Charles Emerson
Queensland
Australia

QUOTE (ebaykal @ 10 Mar 2009, 06:42) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>This thread has become a very good source on the subject of tracks.

I came across these while surfing and to be honest they look far more better than what I have seen so far in relation to tracks/points.

Check it out, specially the slide show:

http://www.handlaidtrack.com/

Richard have you heard of them?

Baykal

***Yes, I have heard of them

they work fine but they are an expensive way to make a standard turnout - and a jig is simply not needed.

With your good hand skills you would be much better served by buying the programme "Templot" and learning to make accurate templates for Turkish railways (easier than you think) and also then hand making the turnouts with soldering iron, files, rail cutters, dremel, a couple of our gauges and perhaps one special tool - our frog / common crossing jig.

Fancy jigs like the fastracks just are not really needed and in fact make all turnouts look just like all other turnouts, preventing a nice flowing layout being created! A layout properly designed with a track/turnout design programme like Templot will laways look better track-wise... for two examples, the photo's in my gallery and Jim SW's birmingham new street will show you what I mean - both are created using hand made track and templot.

something to whet your appetite: If you take an average track layout made with RTR pointwork, you could make an equivalent in the same space with the same storage/siding lengths but with more realistic larger frog angle / wider radius pointwork by hand laying them as they can be made to flow more naturally with no preset restrictions. (for example, where RTR may use say # 6 or 6 turnouts, you could use realistic # 8's)

Hand laid track isn't really a great MRF interest... so PM me if you need more direct / specific data on the tools needed / or the techiques.

(and DO immediately take a look at TEMPLOT and join the TEMPLOT forum to see what the possibilities are... You will learn a lot and there are some really helpful people there who love accurate and realistic track as pert of their modelling)

Richard

QUOTE (ebaykal @ 10 Mar 2009, 04:42) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>This thread has become a very good source on the subject of tracks.

I came across these while surfing and to be honest they look far more better than what I have seen so far in relation to tracks/points.

Check it out, specially the slide show:

http://www.handlaidtrack.com/

Richard have you heard of them?

Baykal

hey chris o ...

everyone here has mentioned british tracks apart from tillig - if your going to weather yr tracks, consider having a look at fleischmann's track system. i know its not a british track - but u did mention looks were not the most important thing - the fleischmann system has something that i really like - the points can be bought as electro-frog, and the best thing about them is you dont need any wiring or switches or isolating track cuts/isolating fishplates. the frog polarity switching is all done automatically for you and so you just lay it like any other piece of track. the track has a ready made track bed that u can colour / weather as u like an it looks ok once uv done that.
they also make a very useful space saving 3 way point - im gonna be using these in my layout!. the pieces click together and give a reliable electrical contact - but these tracks are not so popular in the uk, but over on mainland europe, you see a lot of it being used. - a look at the online catalogue costs nothing!

good luck with your choice!