Trackwork Part 7 - Postscript

The upper track is the Down Main fitted with flat bottom rail. It is Peco code 75 with sleepers spaced out and weathered as described in this posting series.

The lower track is a passing loop/siding fitted with bullhead rail. It is made from C&L 3 bolt chairs on EM Society plywood sleepers.

The work involved in enhancing track work like this is very time consuming. I still have about 14 feet of track to prepare and replace on this side of the layout alone. Aesthetically it is a vast improvement on r.t.r track but, for the lone modeller with limited time or patience it is probably best suited to small/micro layouts. I am in two minds about doing the same exercise on the other side of the layout, which has about 36 feet of track work. Only time will tell.

To Part 1

Trackwork - Part 6

Making your own ballast has the same satisfaction that a gardener gains from making their own compost!

You may not be able to use my technique as most of the material was given to me so, I do not know of a commercial source.

I started off many years ago using grey (or pink?) cat litter, ground down or sieved to a fine grade. I would not recommend cat litter now because the granules tend to fall apart when wet. But, remnants still show up in my ballast because my mix is reusable from layout to layout. (Read on and you'll find the special glue that holds the ballast stable yet allows it to be lifted and re-used). Subsequently I was given a bag of decorative grey (granite?) chips use by the building trade. The granules are a few millimetres across. These were crushed in an old coffee grinder and sieved with a fine mesh tea strainer to remove the dust (which is used for tarmac road surfaces) and then sieved with a 1 millimetre mesh used for car body repairs to create scale 3" ballast rocks.

Cork granules were sieved and added to the mix in small quantities. The grey chips predominate and the cork adds a little colour variation.

The magic glue is wallpaper paste flakes that are crushed and sieved with a tea strainer with the resulting 'dust' added to the mix. Can't really say what proportions are used - it's all guess work.

Some prototype track work has dark ballast between the sleepers where trains have deposited oil and muck so, a second mix is made up comprising the granite chips, black carbon granules from a face mask filter and dark brown dyed sawdust (Peco scatter material). The photo above shows this variation.

The ballast is then laid and water mixed with a little washing up liquid (to reduce surface tension) is sprayed to thoroughly soak the material. It takes a couple of days to dry by natural evaporation and leaves a stable surface that will withstand light vacuuming but will crumble to pieces if scrapped with a screwdriver. Hence it can be broken up for reuse.

To Part 7

To Part 1

Trackwork - Part 5

Now turning to the straights, I increased sleeper spacing of Peco Streamline to 8.8mm and was staggered at the improvement in appearance just 1.8mm makes! I doubt I'll ever lay Peco track again without making this simple adjustment.

I am replacing code 100 track with weathered code 75 on an already landscaped railway. In this case it is easier to paint the 75 track off layout but how to do this for curved flexi track? One of the issues is that painting is likely to 'fix' the rail to the sleeper making it impossible to bend straight track into a curve.

The photo shows a painting jig for this situation. First, a paper template is made to the length and curvature required. This is placed on a length of chipboard with the straight track laid on top. Starting at one end a track pin is lightly hammered in beside the inner rail (not through a sleeper) to restrain the track as the curve is gradually formed adding further pins every fourth sleeper. A few pins are needed alongside the outer rail to stop spring-back.

Each sleeper, which is independent of the others, is adjusted during the curve formation to maintain the 8.8mm spacing and square to the rails.

Paint mask the top of the rails and rail ends and it is ready for painting.

To Part 1

To Part 6

Trackwork - Part 4

Painting was quite a challenge in that I had to visit 3 model and craft shops to get the two cans of Humbrol matt paint I was after! The top rail surface was masked with strips of insulation tape before spraying grey car primer all over. Then the rails were sprayed and drinking straws slit and placed over them to mask before spraying the sleepers. After reading other modeller's recommendations and studying several photos of the prototype I decided on Humbrol 62 for the rails and 160 mixed with a little black for the sleepers. 

The sleepers are slightly lighter than the Peco plastic and of course not shiny. They do look more like grimy wooden sleepers than the bare Peco plastic. Other colours would be suitable because the variations in the prototype are significant, dependent on age and location of the track. My selection is suitable for the main line, which is where they are to be placed. I had some Colin Waite 4 bolt cosmetic fishplates left over from previous modelling so they have been applied to the rail ends, as seen in the photo, together with Peco rail joiners. 

To Part 5

To Part 1 

Trackwork - Part 3

My objectives in improving the look of the Peco Code 75 turnout can be summarised as follows:

• Infill the missing sleeper portions
• Eliminate the large block
• Cover holes in sleepers and tiebar
• Retain finger operation of turnout switch, i.e. the Peco sprung locking mechanism
• Retain Peco point motor fixing points and control
• And this is the big one - be able to easily retrofit the original mechanics without recourse to glue etc. This is just a safeguard in case it all went belly up and if I ever sell the turnout it's a nice thought that I can rebuild it pretty much back to the original.

To remind you of the offending parts of the turnout:

And here is the modified turnout that meets all the stated objectives.
There are special methods used in this conversion that aid the retrofit of the original mechanics. It just so happens that they also make the conversion straightforward and a delight to undertake.

Photo below shows spring retention bar.

To Part 4.

To Part 1.

Trackwork - Part 2

With reference to the last posting in this series the results of the track test are: 1) No shorting experienced using old or new rolling stock. Looks like Peco have got the switch blade gap just right in this respect. 2) The wheel flanges of some Lima and old Triang stock just skim the chair tops causing a rat-tat-tat sound. But, the stock does not rock, bounce or derail. I shall accept the risk and not rewire the turnouts until proved otherwise. I will probably re-wheel the offending stock to finescale. 

Now I'll turn to the cosmetics of the Peco turnout. These two pictures show the prototype. The first with an electrical point motor and the second with manual rodding. The crank arrangement on the latter varies depending on the installation.

   

And this is the Peco turnout with the offending bits marked. It was designed this way for ease of manufacture, maintenance and compatibility with their point motors. But it doesn't look like the prototype does it? 

My turnouts are finger operated so I want to retain the Peco switch blade locking mechanism and the complete tie bar whilst eliminating the block and tidying up the sleepers. 

To Part 3 

To Part 1

Trackwork - For The Average Enthusiast

I have decided to take a fresh look at my track work with a view to replacing it for something a little more appealing and better performance.

Currently my turnouts are 00 Peco code 100 small radius insulfrog and the straights are Graham Farish 00 Code 100 Formoway (The latter no longer marketed).

Let me start by saying that previously I was a finescale modeller in EM for many years using hand built code 75 turnouts with C&L chairs and SMP Scaleway code 75 straights. I am therefore, very familiar with the code 75 v 100 debate. 

My backward(?) step to 00 and code 100 was purely because I could not face converting to EM the finely detailed r.t.r steam locomotives that have come on the market in recent years. Also, my use of code 100 was because I had bountiful stock from even earlier modelling activities.

The main issue I have with my present track work is that the small radius turnouts tend to encourage derailments. I really should move up to medium points at the least and consider moving to code 75 for authenticity.

First thing to consider is the prototype. In the first half of the sixties a mix of flat bottom and bullhead rail in 60' lengths was in use on BR(S). On the main line at Crewkerne flat bottom rail was in use but anywhere along the main line you could find a mix of both. Sidings were still in bullhead and turnouts remained in bullhead due to the high cost of replacement. At this time wooden sleepers were the norm.

For model track my first decision is to use r-t-r turnouts, as I see no benefit in making these for 00 gauge when the track gauge is so unprototypical. Disregarding 'toy' track the r-t-r- options are either Tillig or Peco. Neither products are accurate to UK prototype. Tillig being for overseas networks and Peco - well the sleeper spacing and size is wrong, the chairs unrealistic, has cosmetic mechanics around the tie bar that bear no resemblance to the prototype and it's flat bottom! This just goes to show that compromise is necessary, which for the 00 gauge modeller (who is already living with an inaccurate track gauge) should not be an issue.

I bought myself a Peco code 75 elctrofrog turnout for trials. Sit this alongside a code 100 and the difference is (remarkably) not that significant. It's mainly the wide flat bottom of code 100 that makes it look too bulky when viewed from above. This is where code 75 has an extra advantage since it's narrower flat bottom is not far off the desired bullhead in appearance.

The Peco code 75 has much finer and tidier appearance than code 100 around the frog (i.e. the V) because there are no breaks in the rail, which brings us to the major technical difference. The frog and switch blades are electrified throughout. This means the locomotive has consistent power feed throughout its journey through the turnout and as a consequence trouble free running at slow speeds. The downside is course-scale metal wheels may cause momentary shorting through the switch blade. For command and control systems this event would result in fail safe cut out of power and possibly longer term damage. Peco have made provision in the design for the User to rewire the turnout and circumnavigate the shorting issue, but this also requires an electrical switch that is mechanically connected to the switch blade movement. I'd like to avoid that if possible so my next step is to set up a live test and run all my stock through.

By the way, point operation is currently by means of a finger rather than remote control and this shall probably prevail.

To Part 2