Building track the traditional way, P4 3 way pus a bit of 00 gauge

simond

simond

Western Thunderer
Hayfield1 said:
simond

I think it all goes back to the post war years of austerity, plus the old Streamline had a larger (or more lucrative ) market in Europe and the USA. With the demise of Wrenn. Formway and GEM there was no competition to force Peco's hand

Then of course one company DCC Concepts decided to enter the market and Peco reacted with not only 4mm scale track but bullhead to boot. As a result they found a complete new market, which coincided with Peco investing in new design and production technology.

Still they still have proper 00 gauge track in 4mm scale track. Dont they also have dedicated USA trackage system?

John
Click to expand...
John,

I don’t know, just something I heard and thought, “oh, that explains the sleeper spacing”, though, of course, it may not!

In my opinion, Peco have been a very savvy part of our hobby since its conception. And vitally important too!

best
Simon
 
Overseer

Overseer

Western Thunderer
Hayfield1 said:
simond

I think it all goes back to the post war years of austerity, plus the old Streamline had a larger (or more lucrative ) market in Europe and the USA. With the demise of Wrenn. Formway and GEM there was no competition to force Peco's hand

Then of course one company DCC Concepts decided to enter the market and Peco reacted with not only 4mm scale track but bullhead to boot. As a result they found a complete new market, which coincided with Peco investing in new design and production technology.

Still they still have proper 00 gauge track in 4mm scale track. Dont they also have dedicated USA trackage system?

John
Click to expand...
But the OO bullhead track is not actually 4mm scale either. It is a bit of a compromise, basically accurate 3.5mm scale with slightly over width sleepers. The sleepers scale to 9 feet long in HO scale and the sleeper spacings are about right for HO scale. The comparison with C&L EM gauge track illustrates the differences. At least it is modelled on British prototype instead of the US sleeper size and spacings of the older flex track. Maybe Peco were targeting the French market, probably not, they are just pragmatic adjusting the scales to keep it generally in proportion. I should have included some old "Finescale OO" SMP track in the photos to show how it never looked right either.

peco oo cl em.jpg
pecooo clem.jpg
 
B

Bob Essex

Western Thunderer
I guess Peco have done the best job they can proportionally as correct 4mm scale track with regard to sleeper size and spacing would look really ‘narrow gauge’ with 16.5mm. No easy answers when the gauge discrepancy is so large. Makes the differences between EM/P4 and OMF/S7 seem rather minor by comparison.

Bob
 
martin_wynne

martin_wynne

Western Thunderer
3 LINK said:
When I put up the post, I didn’t realise what a can of worms I had opened :eek: . I often refer to “crossings “ as either points or turnouts, and as we all seem to know what they do, does it really matter..:D

Regards, Martyn.
Click to expand...
@3 LINK

Hi Martyn,

But will everyone still know in 100 years time?

It does matter when posting on the internet because it gets copied and repeated far and wide. It will be indexed by Google and still coming up in search results 100 years from now.

Nowadays it is even worse because it gets picked up by AI systems and repeated as truth.

Here is an AI-generated image of a UK level crossing. How long before it gets treated as real? If it appears on a little screen, it must be true, right? :)


ai_level_crosing.jpg

Martin.
 
cbrailways

cbrailways

Western Thunderer
Back to the subject in hand. The S&T generally refer to them as points but sometimes as turnouts.... There were/are various ways of describing them, all valid. For example the GWR Pway standards describe them as 'Leads' and the three way that started this topic the LMS PWay standards described as a 'Three-Throw'.:)
 
P

PaxtonP4

Western Thunderer
cbrailways said:
the three way that started this topic the LMS PWay standards described as a 'Three-Throw'.:)
Click to expand...
No - the LMS refers to Three-throw turnouts as Three-throw turnouts. The standards do not reference a Tandem Turnout, simply because each Tandem was a bespoke item of track construction.
 
martin_wynne

martin_wynne

Western Thunderer
PaxtonP4 said:
No - the LMS refers to Three-throw turnouts as Three-throw turnouts. The standards do not reference a Tandem Turnout, simply because each Tandem was a bespoke item of track construction.
Click to expand...

REA Bullhead track standards download link:

REA Bullhead track drawings

Some LNER standard tandems:


index.php


Martin.
 
martin_wynne

martin_wynne

Western Thunderer
simond said:
I'd rather not be in the little hut, or indeed on the bike, given the trajectory of the train...

curious unicycle too...
Click to expand...

The poor chap on the bike is already in a sad state. His left foot is on the pedal at its upper position, his right foot is on the other pedal at its lowest position -- but his knees are level. The one-wheel bicycle has been provided for him -- no pedals.
 
oldravendale

oldravendale

Western Thunderer
I assume the left hand track is for the unicycle? Or has the Listowel and Ballybunion become magically transposed to the Cotswolds?

This is absurd. I suspect people re now deliberately trying to mislead AI. :)) That was not my intention with the 4-2-2 Coronation.... :drool:
 
cbrailways

cbrailways

Western Thunderer
PaxtonP4 said:
No - the LMS refers to Three-throw turnouts as Three-throw turnouts. The standards do not reference a Tandem Turnout, simply because each Tandem was a bespoke item of track construction.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I think you have confused my post with others. I posted that the LMS Standard Pway Drawings Dated 1928 on Page 9a are clearly annotated 'Three-Throw Types 1 and 2'. No mention of the word 'Turnout'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
What's New?
Top