Using 00 track for 00

Discussion in 'RTR Trackwork' started by Ben Alder, May 7, 2017.

  1. Ben Alder

    Ben Alder Full Member

    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    240
    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2017
    It is somewhat ironic that despite the marked improvements in almost all other aspects of railway modelling these last fifteen or so years that commercial 4mm track still is basically stuck in the Sixties - Hornby Dublo with its Code 100 two rail system set the pattern for much of which is still the norm today and Peco with its Streamline range saw off several competitors, who offered 00 track but in inferior quality. The main problem with this is that it is all H0 track, with 3.5mm to a foot spacings and sleeper dimensions and there no amount of fiddling with it can disguise the fact that it looks nothing like British PW, especially for steam era layouts. The rail is flat bottom whereas most UK was bullhead well beyond 1968, esp. if you go beyond the main lines.
    My layout is often praised, and I know a lot of this is due to that I use a true 00 track, with 4mm scale dimensions, which immediately gives an authentic appearance to an image. Peco and DCC have recently released 00 track and are both promising point ranges which should help in these matters but until a new form of "Set track" type is on the market I suspect that this will still be minority interest.
    Fortunately, there have been scale alternatives around for a number of years, from one or two cottage manufacturers and I have used C&L's track for some time now, coupled with Peco Code 75 medium radius pointwork as a pragmatic compromise - life being too short for me to add building track as another aspect of the hobby . On the last layout I left the points as they came out of the box, more or less, but on the current build, thanks to some forum nagging, I set about "improving" them.

    Cutting away the gubbins at the switch end helps a lot, including the spring housing - this means using the above board point motor base to hold the blades in place. A shot of the butchered work.

    [​IMG]

    The other visual problem was the rail and its fixings on the points - the track had chairs and the absence of them on the turnouts was only too obvious in photos, as seen here.

    [​IMG]

    The oversize rail joiners are another yet to be attended to job :oops:

    The answer to this was to add cosmetic half chairs to the points and I will take a look at this another time. Here is shot of the job in hand, with some of the chairs yet to be painted.

    [​IMG]

    And a couple showing the finished result - it's a bit of optical illusion as not every sleeper is done on the inside but the continuity is enough to keep the eye satisfied...

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Thankfully, it shouldn't be something I have to repeat but I'm pleased enough with the results.
     
  2. paul_l

    paul_l Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    5,902
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2015
    Very effective results, you sure it wouldn't have been easier to hand build :avatar:

    SMP also do a plastic point kit for a 3ft radius point .

    The issue with OO is its the wrong gauge, which opens another religious debate, but I have to admit a model sitting on P4 track looks right, and the track work flows, but I've not got the space or time to build track, locos and stock, so will stick for the moment with OO, and a wee O gauge layout, but as I do have some HR P4 rolling stock - you never know

    Paul
     
  3. Ron

    Ron Full Member

    Messages:
    3,318
    Likes Received:
    757
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2015
    Very impressive Ben, nice work. What sort of uncoupling devices do you use??
    Cheers
    Ron
     
  4. Ben Alder

    Ben Alder Full Member

    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    240
    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2017
    paul_l wrote:
    Yes, I know 00's failings and if we were starting again I suspect it would be to an EM standard at 18.83 mm but that's not going to happen....:whatever: I have had to do hideous compromises with the Peco 3 way points to cram what I wanted in the space available and unfortunately they are visible in too many shots, but it means in running terms that I can have an operational layout. I did dabble with EM some twenty years ago, but again the time factor kept me to 00, and I have built SMP points on a previous layout but found that current wheel standards didn't like the the clearances on them. It's a case of got the T shirt in where I've ended up re. track, but, TBH, when playing with the layout I am facing it and the narrowness of 00 isn't too apparent as it seems with some of the end on photos.

    The fact that I now have a running system with plenty pre group HR and CR survivors is enough for me - something I had started planning in 1970 and for years, if not decades, seemed an impossibility is a dream come true for me, and being able to add the esoteric rolling stock that was around is an extra bonus.

    As for couplings, coaching stock is Kadees and wagons are single ended 3mm delayed action Sprat and Winkles, which to my mind are about the best of all the alternative couplings - reliable and tolerant of slight differences, and easily adjustable if required. I did have the coaches fitted with them but they gave too much fore and aft movement, which is OK in a freight train but passenger stock is a more rigid formation. it does lead to some operational compatibility, but all part of the fun!
     
  5. paul_l

    paul_l Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    5,902
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2015
    Hi Richard, as the Americans would say - "I know where you are coming from", and explains why Victoria Road was built in OO. I've not tried EM, and if I were to go all diesel then EM or P4 would be back on the cards, but I like kettles, and the thought of those conversions just puts them beyond consideration. Although there maybe a P4 Inglenook HR layout appear if I can get a loco built and running .

    Paul
     

Share This Page