A follow-up here to the track experiments in the previous entry.
A batch of Peco Code 75 has arrived, enabling a comparison of the four types of track seen above. Everything is OO, ie 16.5 mm gauge. The Timber Tracks panel is the GWR 44' 6" version for P4/EM, and it's interesting to note the slight narrow gauge look this track has when viewed directly above. This isn't C+L's fault of course, but a result of the slightly incorrect gauge.
But we don't often view layouts directly from above. As soon as even a slight sideways angle is introduced, the wider sleepers and spacing really starts coming into it's own, I think. The Timber Tracks panel has the later 8' 6" sleepers used after WW1, whereas the 1900s saw use of 9' sleepers on the GWR. But since the gauge is OO, I am hoping that the visual result is right. I have not actually cut the timbers from the panel yet, so the side supports have been edited out in these photos.
C+L Flexitrack vs Peco Streamline. In both cases the rail is Code 75, but the different sleeper height makes quite a difference. Nevertheless, I've heard from other modellers that the two can be combined with no major problems. Unless anyone knows differently? The plan is for "The depot" to have C+L Timbertracks track on-scene, and Peco track off-scene. The height difference will in this case be accommodated by building the fiddle yard a tad lower than the scenic section.
Just for good measure, here is Peco Code 100 vs Peco Code 75. I have happily used Code 100 on "The bay" as I had large quantities of it. With attention to weathering and blending in, I think it can be made to look reasonable from a distance (see eg this post), but it doesn't do well on closer scrutiny (see eg fourth picture in this post).
I hadn't previously noticed that the chairs are different on Peco Code 100 and Code 75. Not sure what prototype the Code 75 chairs represent. Of the two, the generic Code 100 chairs look a bit more GWR'ish. For close-ups of the C+L chairs, see this post.
Edit: The photos below compare the different sleeper lenghts (and sleeper spacing) of C+L and Peco track. See the dicussion on this issue in the comments below.
A batch of Peco Code 75 has arrived, enabling a comparison of the four types of track seen above. Everything is OO, ie 16.5 mm gauge. The Timber Tracks panel is the GWR 44' 6" version for P4/EM, and it's interesting to note the slight narrow gauge look this track has when viewed directly above. This isn't C+L's fault of course, but a result of the slightly incorrect gauge.
But we don't often view layouts directly from above. As soon as even a slight sideways angle is introduced, the wider sleepers and spacing really starts coming into it's own, I think. The Timber Tracks panel has the later 8' 6" sleepers used after WW1, whereas the 1900s saw use of 9' sleepers on the GWR. But since the gauge is OO, I am hoping that the visual result is right. I have not actually cut the timbers from the panel yet, so the side supports have been edited out in these photos.
C+L Flexitrack vs Peco Streamline. In both cases the rail is Code 75, but the different sleeper height makes quite a difference. Nevertheless, I've heard from other modellers that the two can be combined with no major problems. Unless anyone knows differently? The plan is for "The depot" to have C+L Timbertracks track on-scene, and Peco track off-scene. The height difference will in this case be accommodated by building the fiddle yard a tad lower than the scenic section.
Just for good measure, here is Peco Code 100 vs Peco Code 75. I have happily used Code 100 on "The bay" as I had large quantities of it. With attention to weathering and blending in, I think it can be made to look reasonable from a distance (see eg this post), but it doesn't do well on closer scrutiny (see eg fourth picture in this post).
I hadn't previously noticed that the chairs are different on Peco Code 100 and Code 75. Not sure what prototype the Code 75 chairs represent. Of the two, the generic Code 100 chairs look a bit more GWR'ish. For close-ups of the C+L chairs, see this post.
Edit: The photos below compare the different sleeper lenghts (and sleeper spacing) of C+L and Peco track. See the dicussion on this issue in the comments below.