As a new subscriber to your channel i would like to give you a very big thumbs up. at the age of 55 im looking to build a layout for the first time since i was a lad. The search for information and advise lead me to your channel and now i cant turn you off , help and advise is clearly given and your layout work first class, keep it all up and i cant wait for the next upload.
‘...please don’t use swear words in your comments otherwise I will delete them...’ Your channel is informative, concise, enjoyable, and especially DECENT. A big thumbs up from me, 👍🏻
Brilliantly presented and explained. I have battled with "cookie cutter" flanges on wheels for many years and discovered that the PECO US standard code 83 rail works well. As I am in Australia, the costs are prohibitive in obtaining the specialized rail systems (points, crossovers etc.) when building a freelance industrial layout some 24 feet long by 16 feet. For this reason I started building my own specialized items of track as required. This was easier that I ever thought possible, allowed in situ fitting of equipment, much MUCH closer fitting of points and diamonds along with curving sections allowing a very much smoother 'run' through of all stock in all directions on any rail at the slow speeds of an industrial park setting. I have used code 83 for most of the open display section but where the rail is set in concrete pads, has been cobbled or is not visible, I use the old code 100 from previous layout projects. I find that code 100 is fine and dandy until I tried to enter the competitions at rail way model shows. I then discovered an elitist cadre of judges who dominate so totally that code 100 meant a penalty against a layout which precluded it from the top spot every time. The "rivet counter brigade" rules supreme at competition level. The use of DC is also now frowned upon and not using 'sound' in layouts also penalizes one. After fifty plus years of getting my layouts to run quietly, I am now expecting a need for a dining car with fish and chip smells becoming a requirement. Your explanation of the various codes, scale vs gauge and comparisons makes fro a great and educational introduction and I really appreciate having found your channel. Subscribed and have hit the bell. Thank you
What a great reply Frank. I’m saddened by your show judges. It does nothing to encourage interest in our hobby. Anyway, I’m so pleased that you enjoyed the video and good luck with your layout.
I love this channel. It's like having a full documentary every new episode that goes live! I learn lots from lots of different channels, but this is the one that gives the most indepth information and really thrashes out the miniscule details behind everything to do with the hobby, rather than just showing how to do things on a layout. Thank you very much.
@@ChadwickModelRailway Thank you for the reply. Blush away!!! You deserve all of the high praise. Just little things like seeing the episode about useful tools led me to buy a few little things to help with the railway, but the Peco Re-railer you recommended was superb for my 3 year old son. If he gets stuck putting the rolling stock back on to the track then he just grabs that little tool and off he goes. I would never have known about these sorts of things without your help!!!
Hi Charlie Having spent the last 18 years away for the hobby, to focus on family, “kids have now all grown up and left” which means I have lots more free time (& pennies) to revisit my loft space. It was a major shock to learn about the world of DCC, and considering my locos were manufactured long before DCC was even a twinkle in the clever model manufacturers eyes. I needed to play catch-up before making a start on rebuild and replanning my old track. (Steel track in the bin) Your videos have not only been very informative, “educationally speaking” with a splash of humour thrown in, but you have given me a real boast of enthusiasm for the hobby once more. You have taken away the dark art feeling of where do I start, to looking forward to get back into the loft with a brew and iPad to crack on with a much clearer understanding of this hobbies many areas, the iPad is always to hand, for when I start to confuse myself - I will simply review one of your well put together step by step guides, which will get me back on track “ no pun intended”. And yes I’m a DCC convert - I can tell the next couple of years are going to be an expensive, even though I have successfully managed to converted some of my old locos to DCC, there are new ones on my wish list. Id like to finish by saying a big thank you and please keep making these great videos 👍👍👍 Paul S
Just quick point about concrete sleepers and bullhead track. Up on the Inverness to Aberdeen line we have quite a few miles that have bullhead rail on concrete sleepers. It is being gradually replaced but it’s still there. It’s also long welded bullhead- Cheers, Eddie (train driver in Inverness)
Been following this channel for quite a while now ... like the good and simply explained info. Especially this one, really good to know where we are with all the sizes and codes when it comes to tracks. Looking forward to see more progress on your Chadwick layout.
Thanks for this explanation. I'm trying to help my son build his first layout as he is ready and is starting to be interested in scenery, different layouts and more complex track designs. This was really helpful as much of the HO model railway world can be complex and assumes a certain level of existing knowledge. 👍
Hi Charlie, You are correct, most railroads here in the states were built to standard gauge. A few like the Erie Railroad was originally built to 5 foot gauge, but later changed to standard gauge. We did have quite a few narrow gauge railroads. Some were temporary logging lines, while others were common carriers. Of note were the Maine two footers (2 foot gauge) patterned after the Festiniog Railway in Wales. The three foot gauge lines in Pennsylvania (East Broad Top) and North Carolina ("The Tweetsie" aka East Tennessee & Western North Carolina). The most famous of the slim rails as they were known, were the three foot gauge lines in Colorado (Denver & Rio Grande Western Narrow Gauge Lines and Rio Grande Southern). Here in the States it is also very popular to use different code sizes to represent different rail used by the prototypes. As a cost saving measure, the prototypes will use different rail on mainlines, passing sidings, spurs and yard tracks. In HO scale, we have code 40, 55, 70, 83 & 100. The most complete track systems are in code 70, 83 & 100. Most railroads here in the States now use continuous welded rail, but back when the railroads were still using jointed rail with fish plates, the rail length was 39 feet. Quite simply because that length rail would fit on a 40' freight car. It is interesting that in the UK the rail length was 60 feet. Charlie I find your videos very informative and very well made, thank you for posting them. Cheers, Rich S.
I very much enjoyed this session, but i watch all that pops up on u tube. Thanks for all the work that you put into the program. My layout is getting better just by trying what you teach me Thank you.
Thank you Charlie. Very helpful and informative, you really do have a knack of making everything interesting. Keep up the good work, I really look forward to your videos.
Just started again after a 40 year break, we are using a Peco set track kit and having lots of fun wizzing round the oval. This was very helpful thanks. Probably will stick to set track for a bit, the flexible track looks tricky and stressful. Got to build a base boat next; um....
Hi Charlie, thanks for your informative video on OO model railway track and the different track gauges. I won't go into the P4/S4 vs OO/HO track debate. But about 40 to 45 years ago when I decided to build model railways as my hobby, I decided at that time to build / modify my OO scale model trains to run on P4 track. My reasoning was two fold, first if I was going to build my model trains to scale, why not have scale track for them to run on, and second commercially made Peco or Hornby track and turnouts over here where I live in New Zealand are over twice the price of the same track if purchased in the UK. I am an average railway modeller, I could not for example build a model of a steam locomotive , nor could I build a working semaphore signal, but because of the design of P4/S4 track, I can build very good P4/S4 track and turnout formations. Building P4/S4 track is the easy bit, building locomotives , coaches, wagons, model buildings, scenery is the difficult bit. I do not consider myself a great modeller, I could not for example build a working model of a steam engine in OO scale, nor could I build a working semaphore signal, but I can build very good P4/S4 track and fairly complicated turnout. Modellers should not be put-off converting to P4/S4 scale track, as over time it has been made out to be much more difficult to build P4/S4 track than it actually is. Regards Barry
Hi Charlie, Sort off ! It is a continuous double track main line about 9 real ft short of a scale mile around the 4 sides of my train shed with a model of Barnham station on one long side of my train shed and 10 storage sidings on the other side representing London, Brighton and Littlehampton on the up main line, and Chichester, Portsmouth and the West country on the down main line, and a reverse loop for the EMU's that burrows down under the layout in southern style, connecting the up sidings to the down sidings My storage siding set-up allows a time table working based on the services to and from Barnham in the late 1950's and early 1960's, with 3 steam hauled down express passenger trains from Brighton to Bournemouth, Brighton to Plymouth, and Brighton to Cardiff with return workings in the evening. Then there were 2 up express EMU trains and 2 down express EMU trains from London every hour that split and joined at Barnham, one portion went to Portsmouth and the other portion went to Bognor Regis. In addition there were local stopping EMU service from Bognor Regis, Chichester, Portsmouth, Littlehampton, Brighton, and London that stopped at Barnham. Then there was the goods and parcel service, but that another story. If you look at track plans of Barnham in the 1950's and 60's Charlie you will see that it had a very unusual turnout formation at the west end of the station that included a pair of curved diamond crossings and 2 double junctions, which would be very difficult to model with commercial turnouts, but was a lot easier to model with P4/S4 track. Regards Barry
@@bazza3643 Late reply Bazza, but i'm in NZ too and only just getting back into the hobby. I used to build brass 7mm diesel kits before pre-built was a thing (and the prices are eye-watering)! I love the idea of P4 wheel sets in 00 models, and building track. Is it cheaper to make your own here, with shipping costs etc factored in?
Thanks, Charlie, for the discussion on 75 and 100 HO track and the differences in height and spacing. I'm an N Scale modeler and am using Code 55 Peco throughout. There is enough complexity in electronics, let alone track that I have fewer headaches by making a one-time decision, right or wrong, and staying with the initial decision on Code 55 track. I enjoyed the decision and love the way you explain, frankly, complicated subjects of interest. Best wishes to you. Dean from Minnesota USA
Well done Charlie, I needed £300 pounds worth of track for my new layout and you have just helped me make up my mind which ones to purchase, It was for me a bit worrying in case I spent it on the wrong ones, I now feel I have bought the right type for me, thanks again .
One comment on the bullhead track. The ties on (under?) the Peco bullhead are thinner than the usual ties we find under code 100 or 83, making ballasting a challenge. Worse yet, the Legacy bullhead from DCC has even thinner ties, forcing one to use fine ballast, as they are are the same size as the medium ballast commonly available. Spreading ballast then brushing it to clean off the ties will expose the underballast, whether cork or foam. Big challenge. I've also been tempted to cut the connections between the ties to reveal the daylight often seen in prototype photos, but soon realized that would entail four cuts per tie. It does look great though, but for several hundred feet of bullhead - I don't think so.
Thanks Jack, for an interesting comment. I must confess, I have switched to the fine grade of ballast. It looks far more prototypical. Regards, Charlie
I'm running all variants on mine. Code 100 on all non scenic areas. I've also painfully referenced all areas surrounding Exeter st David's and taken the leap to use flat bottom wooden and concrete re-spaced code 75 and bullhead mixed up together and what an arse to get it bang on the real location. The bullhead rail looks slightly odd compared to re-spaced wooden and concrete as the sleepers are slightly larger on bullhead in which creates a narrow gauge effect on a whole. The fishplates on bullhead are the biggest test though! They are tiny 😬 5.5mm spacing I went for and was re-spacing, soldering droppers and fixing down in around 10 minutes per length. It's definitely worth the effort that's for sure. Tim.
i have just subscribed to you channel.having now retired i have all the time to build my own railway.the hobby has changed from when i was a lad.thank you for all your advice.cheers tom
Welcome to my channel Thomas Mcelroy it's great to have you onboard. Please let me know of any topics you'd like me to cover and I'll see if I can help. Regards Charlie
@@ChadwickModelRailway thank you for taking the time to reply.i have a b 12 and four coaches in l n e r from the seventies.hopefully this will form the basis of my layout.i am thinking of a country setting.again thanks a lot.tom
Prototype track is a complex subject. Did you know for instance that in the early days fishplates weren't used. The ends of the rails simply butted up against each other, or that the GWR used bridge rail? Bullhead track didn't go out of common use on plain track until about 1970 as I remember. Some track even had steel sleepers, but as they were open ended the track tended to move sideways. Ash ballast tended to be conductive and interfere with track circuits. It also rotted the sleepers. If it hadn't been for recalcitrant landowners then the Liverpool & Manchester Railway wouldn't have had to been routed over Chat Moss and they never would have found out that resilient track was better than rigidly based track. Rails lasted seven times longer over the Chat Moss section than they did in other areas where the base was solid and immovable. All this I learned from the excellent book, The Railway. British Track Since 1804 by Andrew Dow.
Nice one Charlie. Despite it being a nightmare, you got the message across very well mate and you did it with humour, which is a nice touch. I used to work on the railway when they were converting from 60' wooden sleepered track to 300' concrete sleepered track. The main difference I remember between concrete sleepers and wooden sleepers is that concrete sleepers are moulded in 'formers' with a 'shoulder' under the chairs. In the photo you showed, you can just make out the shoulder in a sleeper on the right hand track. All in all though, it was a very entertaining video. Nice one.
Hi Charlie Just wanted to let you know that there is bullhead track on concrete sleepers. I worked on the Conway Valley line and sections were indeed bullhead on concrete sleepers. They were 95 lb rail and the chairs were either C1 or C2 marked. Cheers Barry
Barry Jones I’m sure we still got some in South Wales just trying to remember where at moment, Great info Charlie, did you see Richards video on Everard Junction,, he re spaced all his concretes
Hi charlie thanks for the great explanation on the track ive just built my 1st model railway since 1980 using mostly old code 100 took up from the original by my late father in the mid 1980s
Excellent video on the many different types of track out there. This gave me a lot of great ideas for my HO layout. You explained it quite nicely and to the point. Thanks for taking the time to make and share this video.
Brilliant as always Charlie thanks you. Not sure if anyone has mentioned it but you can now get code 75 concrete medium radius points PECO SL-E1096 & PECO SL-E1095. I guess others will follow soon. Thanks again.
Hi Charlie, what a complicated subject, I'll make it more so. Concrete sleeper track goes back to Bullhead days but concrete sleeper pointwork is a very recent thing, so concrete sleeper plain track and wooden sleeper points is the norm. C & L finescale produce code 75 concrete sleeper bullhead track and a variety of wooden sleeper pointwork, in kit form! There's also Marcway pointwork ready made but I think it's soldered and doesn't have the chair detail. Code 75 is worth the effort if you have the modelling ability (modelling, that's the difference between model and train set), it's not so difficult, just take your time. I've used it in the past, it looks so much better. Now I just do 0 gauge, looks better all round! Paul.
I believe that C75 BH will be on the next layout. The diference between a train set and a model railway is ..... ..... train sets get put away at bed time!
Charlie, of note for us Aussies and Americans the Hornby 4th radius curve is the minimum that we can feasibly run on, a lot of stuff is at or below minimum radius at 3rd
Nicely described and well demonstrated........ As someone who had Hornby Dublo Three-Rail as a child, (after changing from Hornby 'O' Gauge Clockwork), which my Father and I then converted to Hornby Dublo Two Rail when it came out, the modern range of products is as overwhelming as it is interesting. Presumably...and before the advent of long lengths of flexible track...everything that we could ever previously buy was what seems now to be called Set Track or is it Setrack....? This meant the straight or half-straight....or the curve......... As I see it, the main issue we modellers face is that of choosing the correct code rather than the correct scale. Obviously scale is nice or desirable, but in terms of running stock and locomotives, old as well as newer, code is a more important factor. Why...? Well because we want to avoid derailments and we want wheels to run as smoothly as possible. You correctly identify the problem of those of us with older stock.......or who take the opportunity to buy older stock from time to time; namely wheel flanges riding on chairs. The newer Peco Bullhead Code 75 looks interesting and appears to be a major step forward with them addressing the issues of Code and older stock.............but this still leaves the thorny question of "...might Code 100 be the best choice....?" As far as Settrack is concerned, I take the view that if it works then so be it... We should avoid 'knocking' it because, after all, it's what we all started with anyway.... Forgetting how we started...and what our fathers or grand-fathers....and eventually ourselves in time....could afford can blind us to far too many things. We should never forget that this is how many children are still coming into the hobby.......and as prices are now considerably higher all round, the issue of cost and what a family can afford to buy is not that different from when we were younger..... Pardon the pun....but it's all a matter of scale...or relative. It seems to me that the incorporation of Setrack with other forms of flexible track is an option we should never rule out.....and any amount of track pieces we have around can...with the most modest of skills be incorporated into any layout.... If rail hieght is the issue when and wherever we mate different track codes together.....and I would suggest that it is....then all we are talking about is 'shimming-up' track with packing underneath it wherever this is necessary. Given that when track is ballasted it tends to be forgiving of any slight differences in rail hight.....should we be that worried....? Is it the issue we think it is.........or shall we fall back on what a man on a galloping horse, (or passing train come to that), might not see...? Keep up the good work....... James Hennighan Yorkshire, England
Well done Charlie on making a really entertaining and informative video on one of dullest (but inescapable) aspects of model railways! I've gone for Peco Code 75 and, as you covered, I've cut the webbing and re-positioned the sleepers to be more prototypical. I nearly went crazy cutting all that plastic but I used a really useful sleeper spacing tool from PH Designs. That was definitely the best 8 quid I've EVER spent in this hobby.
Morning Charlie, I came back to watch this video as I'm looking to build a small exhibition layout for the first time. Coming into this video, I thought I'd probably stick with code 100 as it's what I know, BUT i wanted to see a comparison. At no point had I previously thought about using bullhead (just making switching to standard 75) However watching this video instantly made me go "yep - bullhead is for me!" thank you!
For me the difference between a layout and a train set is the purpose. A trainset is designed purely for running any trains on a loop of track with a couple of sidings. A layout is a passion project with a custom track plan with scenery and all the trimmings and encompasses all of railway modelling.
Personally, I'd say that a train set is just that: some trains, some track and maybe a little bit of scenery for decoration or play purposes. The aim is to run some trains A model railway for me is an attempt to model an entire landscape with some criteria with regards to detail. So for me, the difference is not the kind of track, but what the aim is. An ambitious modeller may try to be as prototypical as possible, while others take a more relaxed view and just want something that looks nice or has meaning for them. I would call these variations in railway modelling. Having said that, other definitions are possible, like the distinction between set track and flexible track. However, if someone can build a beautiful layout with set track, I would not want to call their layout a train set as I feel it would sound derogatory.
Just seen this video, and as I am starting out in 00 gauge I found it SO helpful - thank you. I have now decided to go down the code 75 bullhead route rather than code 75. I have new locos and new rolling stock, and like the idea of the closer to scale look of code 75. Your video on laying and ballasting was also hugely helpful - MANY THANKS
@@ChadwickModelRailway Thanks Charlie, I have to admit to complete ignorance of a lot of terms - e.g. insul frog - electro frog - and that is because I have been in garden railways for the last 5 years so run live steam and battery controlled r/c locos (converted by me from track pick up) and my track is 45mm (about 500 feet around my large garden raised to about 24inches to avoid my arthritic knees having more problems. (I can also plan and use reverse loops with impunity!!) I decided to use my 11ft x 9ft summerhouse for an 00 gauge (1:76 scale) layout so I could enjoy my hobby during inclement weather and in the winter months. As I am 72 with arthritic knees, I have now decided NOT to have a "duck under" after seeing your video where you plan a re-work to your (large) layout! hence my desire to view your other videos - especially on points (isulfrog v electro frog) - I am unsure, but have purchased DCC - NCE Powwer cab - so I "THINK" I will need electrofrog since the power will be in the track and the dcc system will control the rest?? - anyway - I was so pleased to find your site, and thank you for such informative, and clearly explained videos on subjects that are JUST what I need to understand. I am about to buy "Anyrail" - as I think at this planning stage I need to get dimensions and radii right. thanks again Michael O'
The essential difference between 00 scale and P4 is not the scale ratio which is 1:76.2 for both but the gauge. As you point out, 00 scale uses HO gauge track (16.5mm), EM gauge is 18.2mm and P4 is 18.83mm.
Excellent and informative video Charlie. I have been deliberating on whether to hold off buying track until the bullhead variety has increased, which I believe it will do and hopefully soon. Cost is an issue of course, but the sleeper spacing just looks so much better to me and I doubt I could 'fiddle' with all that cutting of non-bullhead track to get the same effect. Looking forward to the next video, thank you.
I've had more than enough trouble trying to send 1970's and older TriAng/Hornby stock throuh current Hornby Code 100 points, and have replaced all the Hornby ones with Peco. I'm not even going to consider Code 75! Another great video, Charlie - keep them coming!!!
Sorry that I didn't read every comment re: track size/gauge/etc but when you mentioned the tedious cutting and spacing the code 100 track to make 25 sleepers/60 ft length of track. Perhaps a 9-inch jig (very carefully built) that had 24 spaces into which the cut sleepers could be placed and thereby speed up the spacing process. Great channel - will become a Patreon.
I good idea Henry making the jig but the curves would still be a challenge. I’m so pleased that you enjoyed the video and it’s great to have you onboard.
sorry if this is a repeat. luv your channel & all things UK prototype. i'm a US outline N-scaler running code 40 & 55 track and old Fleischmann, Roco & Model Power stock, i.e., HUGE flanges !!! (pizza cutters ) instead of buying all new low profile wheel replacements, what's working for me is the Dremel rotary hobby tool. set it securely in a vise. grind down the flanges with the Dremel. slow speed for plastic, high for metal. use safety glasses of course. very quick solution and saves lottsa dough ! not gonna dump my old code 80 Atlas track though, it still has it's place in staging yards and 3 to 4 feet from viewing points, when painted with 'rust' (combos of raw, burnt umber) and well ballasted. besides i still need #4 &6 turnouts (points) which are not mfr'd in the smaller codes. cheers to chadwick !
ive a simple 7'x1' end to end set up and laid it with code 75 bullhead...ballasted and weathered it.looks amazing. points are expensive (i paid for 7 large at 32 each) but its so worth it. Appreciate for a larger set up it could be too expensive.
Awesome video Charlie. In the past I have read about people's Em or p4 railway but never understood what that actually means so this was briliant. The EM really is appealing to me and I almost went down the bullhead rail for my layout however at the time cost was a factor and went with code 100. Looking back I should have just gone with bullhead and delt with the cost. But I can't change now as I'm too far invested in my track! Great video Charlie and all the best, Clint
Excellent video. I'd suggest that if someone wanted to convert all of their existing track to the correct sleeper spacing that it would be worth creating jigs where the plastic could be cut, then another one to position the sleepers.
Excellent video Charlie. Personally, I'm in the process of re-laying my TMD in Peco Code 75 Bullhead.....just waiting for the release of a Double Slip to complete. I've also used in on my new branch line. For the main line at the same end of the layout, I've re-spaced my Peco Code 100 Concrete sleepered track which has made a world of difference. Keep up the good work!
Another great video, Charlie! A lot of people get gauge and scale confused. Gauge is the distance from rail to rail, scale is the proportion of the model to the prototype. For my next layout, I plan to use Peco code 100 for the mainlines, and re-use my Atlas code 100 for branch lines and yard tracks. Turnouts will be Peco. I want to stay with code 100 for exactly the reason you mentioned: I do have some older locomotives that would not do well on track less than code 100. I also agree with your decision to support the local economy. I buy locally whenever I can, and only online when noone locally has what I need. I have always told people "If you don't support your local hobby shop with your big purchases, they won't be there for the small ones." Looking forward to the next video! Take care!
Hi Charlie. This is very, very helpful for me. I want to introduce my Grandson to this hobby and that means an evolutionary approach. We will have to start with Set track to get something up and running quickly - he's never going to wait for me to build baseboards, not at his age! But I'm interested in a more realistic representation - and particularly signalling and interlocking. P4 and probably EM are way beyond me now - shaky hands. Finding Peco are introducing a more realistic sleeper spacing with bullhead track is very helpful. Thank you, not just for this video, but all the others. I've liberally scattered comments where I think my electrical/electronic/mechanical background knowledge may help. Tried to do it kindly, and no swear words used! BobUK.
This is a great video Charlie. Recently my mother wanted to get the majority of my items I still had stored at her house out of the house in case her and my dad decide to downsize the house so she brought me a bunch of things one of which was my old "Micro Machine Trains" from the Micro Machines line by Galoob. They have no motorized Locos so you have to push the trains manually and are about on par scale wise with Z scale. My son isn't old enough to play with them yet but when he is I will be excited to do so. I have 3 of the Engine House sets which from what I can tell are quite rare, 2 of the Tressels which are also quite rare. 5 Left hand and 5 right hand points (points appear to be uncommon) and a bunch of straight and curved pieces for both the original track which has a raised groove down the centre of the track and the newer track which has a wider recessed area in the middle. Appearently they were only on the market for about a year or two between 1989 and 1991 but it appears that my young self acquired over half, probably closer to 3/4, of all the different Rolling stock and Locomotives in the line. At present time, finance and space prevent me from building a proper layout but at least I have some train related items to share with my son once he gets old enough that he won't choke on the rolling stock (He is at present 4 months old)
That was just what I needed to find out. I am returning after 40+ years away and I have been thinking code 75 bullhead as it fits with the time line I have in mind. As I don't have any rolling stock or loco's at the moment, I don't even have a base board either, then I probably will be ok but will bearing in mind the issues you mention. I think you did. fantastic job explaining it all and I will be trawling your videos for more information.
Hi Charlie, bit late to the argument but heres my opinion. Train set = simple loops with little / no detail for playing with , generally not a lot of fuss about eras and trains. Model railway = designed with detail in mind, attempting a decent level of accuracy can be loops/tail chasers, but generally have dedicated lines and then yards for storage and shunting in. I wouldn’t say settrack isnt for model railways or that it is indicative of a train set. Its a great starting point for a railway, later can be replaced by streamline if within budget
An excellent point beanie. Might I suggest that the difference between a model railway and a train set is, trainsets get put away at bedtime! Regards Charlie
Wow...being an N gauge modeller I should have been quite bored with all this stuff but once again, it’s the way you tell ‘em Charlie. Fascinating insight into the hobby and I have wondered about the difference in track. I have to admit to using set track n my end loops, especially in the tunnel as I knew it would be a solid fitted loop. I am a flexi/finescale convert now though. Thanks Charlie, Chris
Charles i just wanted to say experiencing the European model railroading world has added a new level of Distinction to my modeling in the American model railroading being not so precise but more enjoyable which I thank you very much for that and I do hope that you keep doing the excellent job that you are thank you very much for your time sir! Not that you don't go to the extreme to be precise I did not mean that at all please don't misunderstand what I was saying I just enjoy that you make it so enjoyable the way you present the way to do things in the Hobby and so forth being of European descent in my lineage of life I had I come from European descent and you remind me a lot of my dad the way he looked at things I'm not a youngster but I'm not ancient I'm 54 years of age this year LOL! Please do keep up the excellent work sir and I look forward to your videos with great expectation of your usual Precision model railroading
Hi Charlie. Found your "article" very interestng. You should take up journalism if you want a career change becayse you gave a very balanced approach. Viewers couldn't say that you were in the pocket of one manufacturer over an other, so well done on being neutral. Chat soon. Mike
You certainly explained the differences between gauges and scales. Me personally wouldn’t bother me mixing set track and streamline track and stick with code 100, as I have old locos and rolling stock. Cheers
If you’re going to put bullhead track on your layout Charlie, I’d only put it in sidings and countryside track or slow lines. In my opinion, it wouldn’t look out of place in those locations where BR would’ve recycled the track. Even today, there’s bullhead out there on the network, but in ‘out the way’ locations. I’ve even found bullhead at Kingmoor yard, right next to the Down Fast WCML, sat in a chair stamped with LMSR 1937!!! I have no idea if you can connect the two different track types together however! You probably don’t want to weld them together like network rail have been known to do.....
I think if you file the profile of the bottom of the flatbed track you could then join the two with the bullhead fishplates. You would need to do both the inside and outside of the rail I would guess, something that I will have to face when I get to join the fiddle yard to the main part of the layout in about a zillion years time. I guess the other way would be to try and crimp the code 75 rail joiners, but sure how that would work out.
Great video, as ever very informative. I'm about to come into a position of starting a layout after decades of frustration as an experienced modeller who lacked the space and time to branch out (pardon the pun) into railway modelling. I resisted the urge to go 'N' as I enjoy scenics and buildings and suspect the scale would be frustratingly small. I am very familiar with 1/76 and 1/72 from other interests. As I am starting from scratch existing rolling stock is not an issue, my debate has been code 75 or new bullnose, so this video has been a welcome overview. Keep up the great work and ignore those who might want to 'give you a thrashing,' you are only politely expressing your opinion on your channel about what you want to do. As in other areas, some more reactionary contributors would do well to think on that.
Hi Charlie, I've been thinking of getting back into the hobby. As a kid I didn't worry about the types of track. Now getting ready to step into it as adult I now realize I may need a track laying degree! lol! Tha k you for the information, more to think about. N gauge is starting to sound better.
Great thanks from me .... i was several months in doubt for changing from Fleischmann Profi to Tillig or Peco. After seeing your movie and explanation ... i made the choice. 'm gonne switch to Peco 75. keep on doing the good work ! grtz eric Netherlands
Brilliant explanation of the gauge/scale issue that dominates British modelling. It's unfortunate that Frank Hornby decided to go this way as it is almost impossible to rectify. We see so many reviews of new products focusing on the extreme detail available today but never any mention of the loco sitting on the wrong gauge track - interesting. You are one of the few people to highlight the dilemna and the issue will continue until there is sufficient interest by modellers to start complaining. Keep up the good work and let's hope that manufacturers may, in the future, have another go at British HO.
@@ChadwickModelRailway Hi Charlie, it would be interesting to see how they might deal with steam loco driving wheels but most other wheel sets could be managed.
Great video thanks. I changed over to code 75 two layouts ago at the planning stage, it's not something you change midway through a build, I used Markway SMP track and some hand made point work, the difference in looks is very pleasing to my eye. All of this comes down to skill, time and finances, I've seen some lovely layouts using less than prototypical track and I've seen some poor ones using the best there is, to quote you, "says it all really ".
Nice if the comparison of EM and HO/OO track could each have the correct sleeper spacing (for the 1:76 scale). Of course, the nice perspex tool is ideal for this, on the outside of the curve to allow compaction of the sleepers on curves. (You did show the respacing, but not in comparison with the EM track) In a special offer from Hattons, I bought two packs of Legacy models stainless code 75 bullhead, with lovely bolted fishpates. At 2.83 per length, I thought worthwhile, but I have to include some in the test track to check for chair-click. (I still hope to use the fishplates, for occasional detailed sections!) The only bit I've used so far looks great to support a Wickham trolley on the back of a flatbed. Not to forget that USA HO tend to use Code 83, which is often thought to represent mainline rail better than code 75. And of course, different weight rail for different usages; high speed mainline is heavy, branch lines may be more slight. Oh, and not to forget OO9, which allows narrow-gauge lines in the 1:76 environment, in both code 80 and code 55 (which looks good for a light railway) Thanks for showing all this so nicely.
Oops I think you mean Beer in Devon? Mind all HO American and European Models are all 3,5mm to the Foot. BR did produce Concrete Sleepers for BH Track, I certainly remember working on it on the Exmouth Branch. Great Video thank you Charlie.
Great video once again and I totally agree that which track size you choose will ultimately depend on the era modelled and also and probably most importantly the amount of money you have already invested in your layout.
First off all thanks for this excellent video Charlie. I fully agree that the confusion about scale and gauge will continue until wheeled vehicles will be something of the past ;-) To set a the scene regarding where I come from. I am and model European. I have some H0 mostly rolling stock left over from club use that I can run on rail from a train set (later more). My current focus in on N-scale (1:160) and G-scale - and I still don't get what that should be even having all list of model rail scales and gauges! I listened to your explanation on train set with a smile. As a professional designer I have seen a definition or two on many things. In my world there is not (never) an either-or or black vs. white situation so I don't define model railways in sets or not either. For me there is a changing grade of many variations between a wooden Brio set and a 'fine scale' 1-scale model engine. And when used well I like all those variations in between and beyond. As a designer I have only one problem when talking about scale and that would be the way some scale names/indications mess with imperial and metrics. I know it works, but then it also doesn't. doing some mm to the foot ... why? If you choose to work imperial fine, but stay put there. Better work in metric so the majority of the world can follow. because 3mm to the foot is 3mm to 304.8 mm that would be 1:101.6 and now we have the ration metrics nor length of some body parts in some century don't longer matter. What does matter and surprises many, that only architects and some museum pieces use a 1:100 ratio for their scale. That would be another discussion. Back to track. N for Nine I am not modelling to make real scale things, nor am I modelling to make museum pieces, so I allow for much tolerance as long I got a good experience of what the builder intended. Which keeps my mind open for even Brio and Lego models (or is that toys?). My N-scale is like you put it right both scale and gauge and because I model EU for me that is the 1:160 standard with the possibility of using Nn3 as narrow gauge. Here a real 6.5 gauged N-scale track would be nice, but Z-scale track I can live with. G fro Geeee (what happens here)! The original G fro garden/Garten rail is with 1:22.5 scale rather large and from the start defined as a narrow gauge railway on a track with 45 mm gauge. It was really good to see you show the differences between all those different types of track, as that is what the different is. I have no problem seeing a 1:29 scale train running on G-scale tracks, but be honest when it comes to getting close to the prototype 1-scale (1:32) also runs on 45mm gauge track the difference is in the rail height and form and the sleeper size and spacing. boy what a difference between a 1:29 on G-track and a real 1:32 locomotive on 1-scale track! It is like with people, we have much in common but nobody is exactly the same, still we can enjoy our differences if we just are open for it. With track and scale it is the same thing. I have seen beautiful lay-outs made with 'set track' and the use of very expensive fine scale flex track that came close to an insult of the hobby. If you can convey your story with the materials you choose, it will be a job well done.
Respacing Peco concrete sleepers still looks poor imo. The sleepers are simply too narrow and look worse when respaced! I am currently using Exactocale concrete sleepers and code 82 rail. Vastly superior. Agree re bullhead rail...very nice...just waiting on the long crossing to be released.
@@ChadwickModelRailway With practise, I got this down to 30 minutes per yard of track using tools I made myself. Whether the result is worth the effort is a personal choice.
very well explained Charlie you were brave, my take on it is that we all have grown up with hornby / peco code 100 track which looks normal ,the prototypical spaced sleepers look odd, just off to rip up all my set track as don't want people to think I've got a train set
Cracking video Charlie. I think you were very brave to broach this subject as it is very confusing to say the least. The BIG question you posed was the difference between a train set and a model railway. That opens a real can of worms! My gut feeling is, when I look at a layout that is well built with realistic scenery it becomes a model railway. Having just started creating a "railway" I must leave it to others to judge.
Good timimng Charlie. I have just been through the exact same process and also have miles of code 100. I am in the process of undertaking a total rebuiild of 190m of double track layout with 7 Termini. Shades of McKinley, well maybe but not so big. An way, looked long and hard at Peco Bullhead track and decided that it was worth laying some. It does look good but as you pointed out the real problem at the moment is un-availability of points. cross overs and slips. Also the cost of bullhead is considerably more than either code 100 or 75. So I currently hacking lengths of code 100 to get proper sleeper spacing. The difference when you adjust the sleeper spacing is staggering and for me well worth the time and effort. To begin with I had a lot of trouble keeping the sleepers aligned then decided to try a very small blob of glue on the underside of each sleeper where there is a small hole under the track. That worked a treat and now it is easy to lay the track and make certain that the sleeper distance stays put, well almost all of the sleepers are correct but there is always one or two that escape and need a final adjustment. So I think I may have reached a compromise that suits my style of realism without going to the expence of a total change to bullhead. Thanks agin Charlie for a very useful and timely look at track, scale and gauge. Perhaps Peco should just do a simple mod to there existing code 100 and 75 and respace the sleepers correctly, simple!
Wonderful explanation! I'm at the stage of planning a modern image layout OO layout and Bullhead when weathered and ballasted looks to be a good happy medium. Might have a little bit of re-wheeling on a few 'historic visitor' trains!
Maybe you might have addressed the real technical origin of 00 gauge and why it never applied to model trains manufactured on the continent (or in the US) which have always been using H0 gauge AND scale. The simple reason is that UK railways have been using a smaller loading gauge than continental one (while American ones are using an even wider one than the continental ones). The result being that H0 scale European locomotives and rolling stock are wider than British ones, allowing models to accommodate much more easily clockwork and electric motors when they started being manufactured in the early 20th Century while British manufacturers (Basset-Lowke then Hornby and Tri-Ang had to "cheat" and adopt a wider gauge for their locomotives and then adopt a 1/76 scale instead of 1/87... Hence the "Double O" instead of "Half O"... Btw, this difference in railway clearance explains why continental rolling stock (goods wagons and passenger coaches) could not be used on UK tracks except for dedicated "narrow frame" ones (hence the European CIWL coaches for the famous North Star, Orient Express and other Golden Arrow trains stopped at Calais to be replaced by British narrower Pulmann cars on UK tracks. Same stories with the Eurostar: the first ones (the Alstom ones) are narrower than the standard TGV/Thalys continental ones) since they had to ride on the Southern Railways tracks once on the other side of the Channel. But as soon as the dedicated HST 1 tracks were laid between the tunnel and London-St Pancras, "standard breadth" continental bullet trains could be used (like the Mark II Eurostad ones which are a simple variant of the German ICE made by Siemens). It must be added that this original dilemma originated too with the original project of having Eurostar trains crossing through Britain and riding up to Scotland straight from Paris or Brussels, which never came to fruition, due to the absence of a real network of high speed tracks in the UK.
Yes, I agree that the loading gauge is how we have been able to "get away with" OO 1:76 in the UK, though I think it's worth pointing out that early post-WW2 models from the likes of the Märklin and especially Fleischmann were grossly overscale. Back in the early 1970s my dad and I converted our layout from British outline OO to German outline HO, partly for the better running of German producers than the then ubiquitous Hornby, partly because the scale and gauge more or less matched. I say more or less, as I recall seeing layouts in Continental Modeller in the early days done by a chap who modelled fine-scale HO, which was like the difference between EM and P4, and just a different hobby to the one we were interested in! One interesting thing about continental manufacturers and European outline HO is that to make the coaches go round the tighter curves of a model (or perhaps a train set would be the better word), they tended(Rivarossi were an exception) to make the coaches to a 1:100 length (which IIRC meant they were about 24cm long rather than the c. 30cm they should be in 1:87). So in the 80s and 90s, you got the situation where Roco was making the same coaches in two different lengths! When we moved to the scale length coaches (fortunately the layout was big enough to accommodate them), it was like respacing the sleepers on Peco 16.5mm track to 1:76 spacing: it made a big difference visually, but really only if you saw them side by side or side by side to a prototype photograph. I think that in railway modelling, you either have to make compromises, or you have to scratchbuild virtually everything to EM or P4 standards. Of course, the compromise of 1:76 also meant that when N gauge came on the market, British outline N gauge (originally OOO gauge, I recall, at least from the rubber band driven Lone Star "models") was 1:148, whereas Europe and America went for 1:160.
Bullhead track should and could have been made available years ago. While steam locomotives continue to be an important part of the RTR scene, it is noticable at exhibitions that more and more modern image layouts are to be seen. Point geometry with flat bottom rail is not quite so easy to replicate in miniature scale, not an insurmountable problem, but cetainly a little more thought has to be given to its construction. Bullhead in this aspect is far easier to achieve. I also believe that the compromise with HO/OO , and the motors available not being suitably small enough to fit into the British Outline, was also a consequence of us refusing to source appropriate motors from Germany, where they were available. Peco has dragged its feet over this HO/OO issue for many years. A prime argument being those who want finer track will make their own, which we do. However, simply spacing the sleepers, yes , it does take time, but is a cost effective way of maing the track look far better.
I was confused before Charlie - now I’m even more confused! 😂. No fault of your excellent video, just me! When I was starting this new layout I seriously considered using Code 75 but I had so much track and point work left over that it would have been foolish to go out and buy fresh, if I were starting from scratch then I think I probably would have gone for the Code 75 Bullhead. Great video once again Charlie. 👍🏻. Cheers for now. ............ Graham
Charlie, you said in your video that real mainline track is made in 60 feet lengths and then joined together and that scales down to 9.5 inches. So set track is more to scale than flexible track. I will be using the flexible track in the build of my layout (Not a Train set) and once it is ballasted it would be hard to tell the difference between the two, My layout is going to be made with recycled Hornby track as that is what we have always used. I bought a box of Hornby Track off of eBay for 99P and when it arrived here in Thailand, it was packed in four boxes and one long 4-inch diameter tube which contents the flexible track. I bought it because I did not think I would have enough. Know I have made a plan for an extension board. As usual, it is an individual choice. Good luck with the rest of your rebuild. I will be watching. Martin (Thailand)
This might be kind of nerdy but I might cut up (or at least slot) the 914mm track lengths from Peco to simulate the rail gaps. 60' lengths would be very wasteful so I'm compromising on about 57' which is 228.5 mm, I'll copy Charlie's idea of making a scenic programming track to experiment before ruining loads of expensive bullhead. Charlie, if you get to read this, which type of dremel cutting disc do you use? I'd like to go with the thinnest one they do that doesn't disintegrate after just a few uses.
I moved to N gauge some 20 odd years ago and the same dilemma exists in N gauge too. With an exhibition layout running on Streamline code 55 and looking lovely, we now have code 40 Finetrax available, and, for the same reason I refused to go to DCC due to cost of converting a fleet of locos, I have decided to leave the code 55 in situ. For all of us improvements, nice as they may be, are perhaps not such a good thing overall especially where finances are involved. Thanks for an entertaining video full of really good information. Cheers, Bob
That Peco bullhead looks very close to the SMP track which I use. It needs careful handling while laying but once down, its fine. I do use some code 100 in the storage yards and also have alot of Peco electrofrog code 75 which is fun getting the SMP to line up.
In my mind I think that Train sets are temporary (go back in a box when not in use) and model railways are a permanent setup where modelling is used to create scenery etc. Anything from 1960's was more likely to be Tri-ang or a Hornby Dublo. Hornby wasn't a thing in the 1960's. Tri-ang Hornby maybe. Hornby took over from Tri-ang in 1971 from memory about the time that code 100 started to appear. That's my 2 cents worth. Mon from Monsville Railways
Thanks for this video, I am new to the hobby and have been trying to plan a layout for a wee while, but track types like this have always confused me haha.
Hi Charlie, very informative and enjoyable 👍. No bad language from me but I find Setrack a perfect solution for my needs. Living in London usually comes with 'cozy' living accommodation. Setrack enables me to quickly set up simple but functional loops and points with my design workstation in the middle. That way I get to enjoy running my locos and get on with my work at the same time. My wife often comments on the noise from the trains going round along with the fans whirring away on my workstation while I'm rendering out animations. It can be quite a noisy little room. Always inspired by all your (and everyone elses) videos about model railways but I can only dream... ;-)
Nice video Charlie! I would definitely go for the bullhead, I've used a couple of lengths of it on my Peco viaduct and it really looks the part. Cheers, Joachim
Thank you. As someone who is just getting started this video is as enjoyable as it is informative. Now I know the difference I believe Code 100 is best for my indelicate touch.
Another great, very informative video Charlie, a lot of info there that I wasn't aware of 👍. As a Devonian however I feel compelled to correct you and say that Beer (and therefore Peco) is in Devon, not Dorset 😊 It's not far from Dorset I grant you, but it's far enough 😂
Hi Charlie,very informative indeed,Its quite mind blowing,sorting out which gauge to use if not a mine field etc Myself its code 100 every time. I agree 100% Peco for British workers!! Had the pleasure of going down to BEER a few times,gaining face to face conversations on a issue i may have.Than spend ages over a telephone. Its nice that like yourself took time out to explain the track difference;s and one's choice to go for !!! Not been on line myself quite awhile.Due to my own project."TOPPING OUT" of the new log cabin,etc etc With all this fine weather,we are all gaining, I must complete everything before the Summer is over.Phew been a long haul so far,But i can see the light at the end of the tunnel !!! Boom Boom.I have over 40 video's to catch up on to view,from other's,that i enjoy watching and subscribe too.Pinch,pick a few ideas,that i may not thought of.This is the beauty of railway modelling.Keep up the good work !!! Carol
Nice video which explains the options well. When you were talking about re spacing sleepers have a look at Everard Junctions new layout. Hes laid a whole layout by re spacing all the sleepers on PECO code 75. Amazing
Hi Charlie. While I've been watching your latest vids (2020-21), I thought I'd delve into your archives for some more model railway education. However, I must point out that Beer is next to Seaton on the south coast of Devon, and is NOT in Dorset. I hope you haven't upset any of your Devonshire followers! 😀
Okay Charlie. Thanks for your prompt response. To ease the pain of your Devonshire wounds, I absolutely love your vids; so informative and one can see from your expressions, a very relaxed presentation that makes it so much easier to absorb the message that you are putting across. Long live Chadwick Railway! 😀
I am so glad that OO scale trains run on HO gauge track so that British trains and American trains can run on each others' layouts! I have a mix of American, British, and Japanese trains on my layout. My layout uses code 100, but I might start using code 83 in the future.
An excellent video charlie thank you, even though it is a topic I have researched before I still enjoyed this as your fab at explaining things in a very informative way.
