Making Tracks for Churnbury

 Why make N gauge Track?

My interest is in larger stations with main lines running 'near' full length trains (I am still restricted by a single garage space after all).  Hence the reason I model in N Gauge and when re-starting the hobby I embraced the scale wholeheartedly.  I then screeched to a halt and wondered whether I had chosen the right scale.  I became more and more disheartened with the scale after seeing and operating some exhibition layouts.  It was the track.

I came to dislike Peco track with it's undersized and spaced sleepers and that lump of plastic masquerading as a tie bar and then there is the rail section either the code 80 'girders' or the quasi Code 55.  To me whole layouts that were very nicely detailed were dragged down by this unrealistic track.  However it didn't stop there for me as I watched rolling stock bump its way through the point work ruining the look of the running session.  I vowed if I couldn't find a better more scale track system I would change scales!

I looked around and basically there was nothing out there.  The nearest I came to was code 55 trackwork made in America which had proper code 55, decent tie bar arrangements and finer clearances for wheels.  However American track would still have the undersized sleepers and spacing and on top of that American geometry is different to British - OO was calling!

About that time Finetracks was being discussed and I watched it develop on a few chat pages.  British geometry and design, code 40 rail, decent tie bar and with fine clearances.  Just the ticket and being in kit form didn't concern me.  However by following the chat pages I found out it was being developed using Templot software and this software started to interest me.  The software develops track work templates to precise railway practice and although not designed to be a layout planner it can be.  It outputs to CAD which I use and was a big benefit for me.  I paid for a license (it is now free) and started to develop some track.  I won't discuss Templot here much more but enough to say it was a steep learning curve.  I have a CAD background, having used it for work, and one warning the software gives is that people used to CAD will find it harder to use than someone without that experience.  There are now some very good Templot tutorials on the 2mm Association YouTube channel.

I am a member of the 2mm Association and always read the articles about making ones own track and also followed articles on Easitrack.  I later bought 'The Beginners Guide to 2mm Finescale Modelling' and 'Track How it works and how to model it' both publish by the Association.  You can see where this is leading.  I bought second hand 'An Approach to Finescale Track in 4mm' by Iain Rice and although aimed at 4mm modelers there was substantial content which could be applied to any scale.  I then took the plunge and bought 'GWR Switch and Crossing Practice, A Design Guide for 4mm Modelers'  I really was moving to the dark side.

Compounding my move away from proprietary track including Finetracks was when I realised railway track was fitted into the flow of the railway line not laid as fixed components with the plain track fitted between.  A bit of a 'Doh!' moment I know but being brought up on a diet of fixed points and curved points I think it gets into ones psyche that this is how a railway is built.  My layout Churnbury had to form a lazy S curve to fit the boards and to match the prototype layout I was using and Templot did this beautifully.

I wanted to embrace Finetracks as I think it is a remarkable system and would have saved substantial time.  I spent a lot of time seeing if I could curve points to suit but it seemed unfeasible as I would have to cut numerous parts of the base of the point and I was concerned it would loose its strength and gauge.  I made the difficult decision to make my own track.

I have since read several articles about curving and reinforcing Finetracks and Easitracks points so would probably in future use Finetracks as I did find making one's track is a long drawn out process.  The main benefit to making track is that the track can be designed specifically and the low cost.

So why not go the whole hog and model in 2mm Finescale? - I hear you cry.  Well go back to the beginning of this article and you will see the main point of me being in this scale is main lines and consequently lots of locomotives, coaches and wagons.  Bachmann and Dapol by now were fitting wheels that I was happy with and apart from the cost and the work involved, especially the locomotives, I felt the gain would not be worth it.  By now you maybe asking if I am not happy with the track how can I be happy with a track gauge that is wrong and wheels which still look out of scale?  Well I am in a little band of people, which may only be one, that looks for the correct effect not pure detailed accuracy.  Pizza Cutter wheels and Peco track just looks wrong to me but a major improvement over these standards is enough for me without going the whole, accuracy,  hog.

So what standards was I to use.  I basically kept the mantra in my head 'better than Peco' - sorry Peco.  I did not want super detailed track but, when taken as a whole, it had to look good and work well.

Rail just simply soldered to copperclad sleepers seemed the simplest and quickest method with components sourced from the 2mm Asscociation and although it lacked detail was much better looking than Peco.  The tie bar is simply a sliding sleeper and works well.  I decided to not have chairs these seemed to add a lot of complexity that I just didn't want.  I did consider solder blob chairs but when researching them on line they looked awful so I am a great believer if detail is poor and over sized leave it out.  The lower profile of the track soldered directly to sleepers (There is normally a gap between sleeper and rail) means it creates an effect of good track but is discrete and from the normal viewing distance the eye is fooled.