Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 14 Sep 2017 16:35 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Looking at the switch in the Peco advert for their new turnouts: post-1103-0-13730300-1505402082.jpg  © Peco it seems to be very acceptable within the limits of RTR production. I can imagine some track handbuilders might want to chop this part off to re-use in other formations with larger radii and flatter crossing angles. There's a choice of left and right hand. It's clearly a flexible switch with solid blades, rather than the existing loose-heel stampings which I was expecting to see. It's unfortunate that they have gone for a machined notch in the stock rail and thick blade tips seemingly machined on the back only. And the switch tips shouldn't be in fresh air overlapping the toe timber. They might be able to fix that in production. Or it might be possible to trim them back. But I've seen far worse in handbuilt track before now, and you could hardly expect more at RTR prices and robust reliability. Martin. |
||
|
posted: 14 Sep 2017 17:36 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Here we go. Re-using the Peco switch in a flatter 1:7 turnout: 2_141229_100000000.png  Similarly by cutting more off the Peco turnout a 1:8 turnout could be built.  (Based on best available info and Peco downloadable templates). Martin. |
||
|
posted: 14 Sep 2017 18:22 from: Nigel Brown click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Certainly looks better than their HO offerings. Do they state what standards it's built to? The switch toe does look a bit too fat for comfort, as though a wheel might bash on the end. But it ought to be easily thinned with a file. Nigel |
||
|
posted: 14 Sep 2017 20:12 from: Rob Manchester
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi, Sure these will be a good seller for Peco. Anybody heard about pricing for the new bullhead turnouts ? The FB ones are around the £13-14 mark in most discount shops. Guess they aren't likely to be near that with new tooling costs etc. Who are they made by ? Do anybody know how many companies actually MAKE track rather than badge other peoples products. The best looking RTR track I ever used was Tillig HO which is also available in semi-kit form that allows some deviation from the nominal radius when laying. I think model shops and toy fair dealers will have many boxes of Peco turnouts that have been taken off layouts much like happened when Peco introduced 'finescale' a good while back and lots of people ripped up the code 100 stuff. Rob |
||
|
posted: 14 Sep 2017 20:17 from: rodney_hills
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hello, As stated somewhere by Peco, these are the same length, divegence and nominal radius as the other 00/H0 large radius turnouts, so as to readily allow drop-in replacement on a layout plan or on an existing layout, viz: five feet radius, ten and an eighth inches long, twelve degrees divergence; metric radius/length are on the box illustration, q.v. No price anywhere yet? Rodney Hills |
||
|
posted: 14 Sep 2017 20:39 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Rob Manchester wrote:Who are they made by ?Hi Rob, They are made in the UK by Peco at their factory in Devon. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 14 Sep 2017 20:48 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
rodney_hills wrote:viz: five feet radiusHi Rodney, They call that the "nominal" radius -- i.e. what you get by looking at it from a yard away and guessing, not what you get by actually measuring the rails. School geometry tells you that to achieve 1" offset in a turn of 12 degrees, the absolute maximum radius which is physically possible is 45.76". R = 1 / ( 1 - COS(12) ) Careful measurement of the turnout versines and the published templates match that. The actual radius in the rails is a little under 4ft. Calling the "nominal radius" 5 feet seems forgivable, but when they quote it to the nearest mm (1524mm) you have to wonder about the provisions of the trade description legislation.  Martin. |
||
|
posted: 14 Sep 2017 20:55 from: Rob Manchester
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: Rob Manchester wrote:Great, happy to hear that. Thanks Martin.Who are they made by ?Hi Rob, Rob |
||
|
posted: 14 Sep 2017 21:11 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Rob Manchester wrote:Great, happy to hear that. Thanks Martin.Hi Rob, See: http://www.peco-uk.com/page.asp?id=jobs Martin. |
||
|
posted: 14 Sep 2017 21:31 from: Rob Manchester
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin, Do you think I should apply for a job at Peco then ? Maybe I could splice a couple of extra mm into the timber centres of the new turnouts  Rob |
||
|
posted: 14 Sep 2017 21:52 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Rob Manchester wrote: Do you think I should apply for a job at Peco then ?Hi Rob, Certainly you should. They would surely welcome an experienced Templot user with open arms. I believe there is a staff bus which runs round the local villages, but I doubt it would come as far as Manchester. Martin. |
||
|
posted: 14 Sep 2017 23:40 from: rodney_hills
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin, I know that your interest is infastructure, not what rides the rails. These latter by Hornby have on each box.. "OO gauge 1:76 scale" which is an oxymoron. Regards, Rodney Hills |
||
|
posted: 15 Sep 2017 00:03 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
rodney_hills wrote: "00 gauge 1:76 scale"Hi Rodney, You have lost me there, the definition of 00 gauge is models made to a scale of 4mm/ft (1:76.2) running on a track gauge of 16.5mm. The prototype for the track is railway track of 4ft-1.5in gauge, and if you divide that by 76.2 the answer is 16.5mm. The fact that very little such track actually exists doesn't come into it. Nor does the branch line to Ambridge or the bus on the bridge there. But maybe we should leave these arguments to other forums. Templot is about how to build model track, not whether you should or not. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 15 Sep 2017 17:46 from: Judi R
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Has anyone been able to confirm the sleeper spacings of these yet? Are they to 3.5mm (HO) scale or 4mm (OO) scale? Judi R |
||
|
posted: 15 Sep 2017 17:56 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Judi R wrote: Has anyone been able to confirm the sleeper spacings of these yet? Are they to 3.5mm (H0) scale or 4mm (00) scale?Hi Judi, It is traditional "00 Gauge" track, i.e. 4ft-1.5in gauge track with 8ft long sleepers at 2ft-4in centres, at 4mm/ft scale: post-1103-0-31702200-1453901549.png  The plain track flexi has been available for several months now. Rail is Code75 bullhead nickel-silver (vertical). 4-bolt fishplates available. Thick timbers matching Peco Code75 flat-bottom. These matching turnouts are due before the end of this month, according to Peco. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 17 Sep 2017 22:05 from: madscientist click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Judi R wrote: Has anyone been able to confirm the sleeper spacings of these yet? Are they to 3.5mm (HO) scale or 4mm (OO) scale?It's what we regard as 4mm track yes , ie the sleepers are spaced more or less as per standard gauge track scaled to 4mm, with typical reductions in sleeper length to visually disguise the narrower gauge Martins existential explanation notwithstanding !! |
||
|
posted: 17 Sep 2017 23:12 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
madscientist wrote:Martins existential explanation notwithstanding !!Not sure what you mean by that. If you are building track to 4ft-1.5in gauge, sleepers longer than 8ft would be a waste of timber, which costs money. When a railway company builds railway track, the object of the exercise is to support the weight of the traffic passing over it, not to disguise it as something else. I'm not aware of any 4ft-1.5in track having sleepers longer than 8ft. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 18 Sep 2017 16:33 from: madscientist click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: madscientist wrote:yes Martin , but this isnt a model of a prototype track , its a " visual compromise " to try and make 16.5 gauge, look correct on longer sleepers.Martins existential explanation notwithstanding !!Not sure what you mean by that. I know you have elucidated the idea of a 4'1.5" prototype. The fact is PECO track work is " intended" to be a model of standard gauge track, but due to the requirement to establish a non-scale gauge, amendments are made to sleepers etc to try and reduce the visual effect of the " narrow " track The phenonium of scale models not actually being to scale is quite common, for example my platforms are ½ the size of the prototype in length , its doesnt mean Im suddenly modelling in a different scale, it just means I have introduced a " non-scale " compromise to my model In that regard PECO bull head isnt a scale model of anything, is simple actually a " toy " track made to certain dimensions , that PECO believe will ( a) run most models and (b) have some visual fidelity with the prototypes standard gauge track I'm not aware of any 4ft-1.5in track having sleepers longer than 8ft.hmm , in my proposed company , building a new railway between sillytown and nonsenseville, I have developed track standards that will use 4'1.5" gauge and that will require the builders to use 15 feet sleepers. Hence modellers wishing to use the PECO track , will of course find the scale sleepers are far too short , even if the gauge is modelled correctly |
||
| Last edited on 18 Sep 2017 16:37 by madscientist |
|||
|
posted: 18 Sep 2017 19:15 from: rodney_hills
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hello, Once upon a time, there was a country with both 5' 3" gauge and 3'0". railways. New management called in a consultant to "rationalise" this. He read up on how the 5'3" had been decided upon originally. He concluded that taking the average of the contenders would again produce a 'fair' result. So be it. A fairy, or is it leprechaun?, story. Regards, Rodney Hills |
||
| Last edited on 18 Sep 2017 19:16 by rodney_hills |
|||
|
posted: 22 Sep 2017 18:14 from: Andrew Barrowman
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
madscientist wrote: Martin Wynne wrote:madscientist wrote:yes Martin , but this isnt a model of a prototype track , its a " visual compromise " to try and make 16.5 gauge, look correct on longer sleepers.Martins existential explanation notwithstanding !!Not sure what you mean by that. Whacking six inches off the sleepers alone doesn't achieve much in the way of a visual compromise. You have to go further than that. Here's one example: 2983_151717_540000000.jpg  |
||
|
posted: 22 Sep 2017 18:30 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
madscientist wrote:The fact is PECO track work is "intended" to be a model of standard gauge trackI'm not sure that counts as a "fact". All Peco's marketing refers to "00 Gauge". 00 Gauge means: scale: 4mm/ft track gauge: 16.5mm That being the case, it is by definition a model of 4ft-1.5in gauge track. It's fine if folks want to pretend that it's a model of 4ft-8.5in track, but it can't actually be that and still be called 00 Gauge. I changed the designation of 00-SF to 4-SF in Templot for exactly that reason -- 00 Gauge means a specific thing, and 00-SF wasn't it. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 23 Sep 2017 03:12 from: Andrew Barrowman
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
This is my most recent visually enhanced attempt. By messing around with the aspect ratio of the ballast rectangle formed between the sleepers and the rails as well as the mark/space ratio between the sleepers and the ballast the gauge appears "stretched". But you can't get too greedy or you end up with H0. It's not impossible that Peco considered doing something along similar lines, but as they had to invest a considerable amount in tooling I think they were wise to stick with the original 00 dimensions. 2983_222154_580000000.jpg  |
||
|
posted: 23 Sep 2017 04:02 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Andrew Barrowman wrote: This is my most recent visually enhanced attempt.Hi Andy, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I don't know how it looks to an artist, but to an engineer's eye that track looks too flimsy to support the weight of the traffic. The sleeper centres look to be around 32"/33". Perhaps ok for lightly-used sidings or a Light Railway. For a 4ft-1.5in railway to handle the same weight of traffic as a 4ft-8.5in railway, the track needs roughly the same area of timber. That way the pressure transmitted to the underlying formation is about the same. To have the same area of timber with shorter sleepers, they need to be closer together. 4ft-8.5in straight track in running lines with 8ft-6in sleepers has an average spacing in the UK of 30" (24 per 60ft rail), and closer on soft ground and sharp curves (25 or 26 sleepers per 60ft rail). Peco seem to have gone for 28" spacing for their 4ft-1.5in track, which looks about right to me. That's equivalent to an average spacing of 25.7 sleepers per 60ft. That's at the upper end of sleeper-count for 4ft-8.5in track (which would actually be fine for most model railway curves), and about right to give the same area of timber for 8ft sleepers on 4ft-1.5in track: 30" x 8 / 8.5 = 28.1/4" Perhaps Peco have engineers doing their toolmaking rather than artists? post-1103-0-31702200-1453901549.png 2983_222154_580000000.jpg regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 23 Sep 2017 05:30 from: Andrew Barrowman
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin, I'm well known for barking up trees. Some not entirely couth individuals have even suggested I was "barking mad". There is no question about the gauge. It's 4.125 feet. It's a question of what you want your model to represent, and that will always be highly subjective. Personally I see nothing wrong with applying a bit of Hollywood to make things look a bit different from what they really are, but that's just me. I think my sample looks a lot more like P4 than 00, but we can argue all day about that. Peco has been punting H0 as 00 for fifty plus years (and they got away with it). They could have split the difference quite easily with this new product but they chose not to. Considering the risks I can't really blame them. My evil plan is to present my "EM" layout to the experts before I expose that the gauge is actually 16.5 mm (really 16.2 mm). I must be a bad person. Regards, Andy |
||
|
posted: 23 Sep 2017 05:38 from: Andrew Barrowman
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin, what is the expected range of PSI? I can run the numbers against that sample. AB |
||
|
posted: 23 Sep 2017 21:58 from: Andrew Barrowman
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin, I've made another version that's a bit less "economical" with the sleepers. I does look more suitable for running lines. Regards, Andrew |
||
|
posted: 29 Sep 2017 18:27 from: Rob Manchester
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi, For anybody not reading RMweb the SRP for the new bullhead turnouts is £32.50 as quoted by a Peco dealer to me today. Rob |
||
|
posted: 29 Sep 2017 18:50 from: Paul Boyd
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Rob Manchester wrote: Hi,Wow!! And I thought hand built track could work out expensive. Mind you, after my three year break from railway modelling, I’ve been horrified at the leap in price of RTR generally. |
||
|
posted: 29 Sep 2017 20:31 from: Rob Manchester
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Paul Boyd wrote: Rob Manchester wrote:Paul,Hi,Wow!! And I thought hand built track could work out expensive. Mind you, after my three year break from railway modelling, I’ve been horrified at the leap in price of RTR generally. I was going to make some flatbottom trackwork using copper clad and brassmasters etched bases. The bases are cheap but the PCB is silly money now. Only 6 weeks to the big show....Telford ! You could take the P**O points off me there and save on postage. Rob |
||
| Last edited on 2 Dec 2017 20:23 by Rob Manchester |
|||
|
posted: 2 Dec 2017 16:36 from: mikewturner click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin Is that box file available please I have a couple of these now and am mindful to have a play... Regards Mike Martin Wynne wrote: Here we go. Re-using the Peco switch in a flatter 1:7 turnout: |
||
| Last edited on 2 Dec 2017 16:42 by mikewturner |
|||
|
posted: 2 Dec 2017 17:16 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
mikewturner wrote: Hi MartinHi Mike, File attached. Bear in mind that my timbering was just a guess. I don't know how well it matches the finished product. cheers, Martin. |
||
| Attachment: attach_2594_3079_peco_bullhead_crop.box 163 | |||
|
posted: 2 Dec 2017 20:59 from: mikewturner click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Cheers will have to be tomorrow now the grandson has arrived to sleep! Regards Mike |
||
| Please read this important note about copyright: Unless stated otherwise, all the files submitted to this web site are copyright and the property of the respective contributor. You are welcome to use them for your own personal non-commercial purposes, and in your messages on this web site. If you want to publish any of this material elsewhere or use it commercially, you must first obtain the owner's permission to do so. |