I'm unsure as to whether new members feel that they might introduce themselves with a post when they join a new society and its forum, but I'm going to anyway.
I'll say right away that I've been out of the loop for some 40-odd years, my previous experience gained as a school boy club member modelling (but not completing) a SDJR setting near our school, through which the old railway line ploughed. So there is so much to learn and relearn - indeed probably set the clock back to the beginning, as so many things have changed. And these pages - along with others - illustrate that although many things have changed, some things remain the same!
I've fallen back into line following a chance meeting with a local chap that models EM and he's shown me what he has been modelling; it got me thinking, seeing his layout gradually fill up a room such that the only way to get around while in it is to crawl around the floor. I decided that IF I was to reengage, it would have to be N-gauge (with which I had a flurry of modelling when being brought up in Germany with Fleischmann/Arnold on every corner) or OO9. Initially, and with memories of germanic style railway, I though I'd have a look at HOe/m in the Harz Mtns, but on seeing the prices of Bemo and Tillig engines, I quickly reviewed what was on offer for modellers wanting to model the UK and was very pleased to see so much available in RTR and in kit form.
So, hailing from the Mild West (Dorset), I eyed the availability of stock offerings by Peco and Bachmann and saw that a narrow gauge railway - set in N. Cornwall and Devon could use the somewhat plentiful supply of L&BR and SR liveried stock - could be a runner, although I only have a limited amount of space ~ 3m by 1.5m for the base. My decision has been to set the layout in a quarry that has a mine attached - this was based firstly on the quarries at Portland, but these are huge and the "geology" wasn't what I was looking for. Then I came across quarries and mines at Box, near Bath, but again, it wasn't quite right.
By chance, I was helping the son of a local friend with his geology degree mapping project (I am a geologist by trade/profession) and a photo turned up of a rocky outcrop that blew me away, taken in Boscastle, N. Cornwall. But at the same time I found that there were no large-scale quarries active in the L&BR area during the '20s & '30s, but that there are today and have been since the 60's. Those in the Bray valley, which quarry sandstone for road aggregates and building stone in the better quality rock, lie roughly equidistant between Bratton Fleming (L&BR ) and South Molton (GWR). I have decided to play with the flux capacitors and alter time a little such that these quarries were worked some 30-40 years earlier in the early 30's (there was some quarrying in the Bray valley at that time at the small Mogridge Quarry, but it was the size of a tennis court or two) and that they were connected to the L&BR at Bratton Fleming, which is obviously fantasy, but a mere 4 km away: Boxcastle Bray was born.
So having made you yawn through all that, I do have a few questions for you - and I bet you get them too often - but one of the themes that doesn't seem to have changed over time is that of choices. What I mean by this is the various merits or challenges in using one "thing" or another. There are a number of chats were people ask advice on which one to use or which might be "best": now I realise that this is emotive and one persons choice, being say, a scratch builder, will be inevitably different from a newbie that can only think in RTR because to build everything, first time up, is far too daunting.
My choices (for a OO9 & modelling virgin like me) seem to be:-
Locos - RTR to start some and one or two very basic builds requiring slotting plastic printed bodies over easily accessed Kato/GF chassis
Rolling stock - essentially the same, but I don't mind messing up a few kit wagons as part of the learning process.
Track - some people seem to like Peco, others don't (and watching a few YouTube vids shows this) and others prefer Tillig. Others build their own. Pros/cons?
Electrics - SOS - I don't have a wired brain - it works by blue tooth, I think. Same with wires and circuit boards - there must be a book on this?
DCC - what is this and will it make me eventually go mad? Overkill for OO9 gauge? Will the small locos have room for the decoders or chips?
Scenics - I am looking forward to this bit as it is what I have done some of before.
I would welcome any feedback - positive or negative, especially on building OO9 gauge track using Templot as a guide - or is this also overkill for a narrow gauge set up?
Hi "M" (!) - We would all get to know you better if you sign off with your preferred first name, which stops it getting too formal! Anyway, as you've been on here for 3 hours and nobody has replied yet, may I be the first of I hope many members, to welcome you to the forum.
I imagine from what you have said in your very comprehensive introduction, that you are also a fairly recent "recruit" to the Society? If this is so, then may I also welcome you to the 009 Society with best wishes for a long and fulfilling relationship with the Society. I'm well into my own fifth decade less a year or so in the early 80's when I lapsed due to helping to defend the remains of Empire out in the sticks - which cost me over 1000 membership numbers when I saw the light and came back in from the cold!
If I can start off by answering one of your questions and hoping to offer my own thoughts about a couple of others:
Track - I personally would not go for Tillig as the standard, particularly as people I have known who did this universally seemed to have big problems with the points. My advice (unless you really want to scratch build track, is to go for Peco 009. If you are doing a quarry scene then you probably won't need the "mainline" range with its 18" radius points, so probably the crazy track if that is what it is still called, will be better for you. 12" radius points and 18" radius Y points are the most popular, I would advise against the 9" radius points as they are "insulfrog" ie dead frog and would not be too friendly with the small wheelbase 0-4-0 locos etc that I should think you would want in your quarry!
A growing number of 009 modellers have started to use the Kato set track system, particularly as a quick and easy option for test tracks as it is robust and comes mounted onto a base (do you remember the original Triang/Rovex grey plastic track base from the 1950's? Very similar in looks but much more up to date in reliability etc.
DCC - loads of modellers using this nowadays. Personally it is way too much for me, I prefer a gaugemaster combi or W controller and DC which is what I might call the "normal" route for those new to 009 (If you are adept at electrical knowledge then I stand corrected!) - but I've just read your para on Electrics, so that answers it - keep it simple and keep to plain old DC - yes there are books on the subject - if you just get the Peco pamphlets which I think can be ordered from Peco and are not expensive then if I remember there are 2 that cover very basic electrics for a layout up to fairly complex stuff such as cab control etc etc.
Finally -
1. Editor 009 News is always on the lookout for fresh articles covering anything from a basic "wagon bash" up to layout features so once you have settled in, please do consider contributing
something/anything for the mag!
2. You said you hail from Dorset - I've now escaped but was resident in Blandford for 26 years but am now the Wessex NG Modellers token "foreign member" as I live 150 miles away on the other side of the Severn Bridge. There are several Dorset resident members of the WNGM whose members cover broadly from Weymouth to Portsmouth west to east and from Southampton to Alton south to north- contact details for the Group are in 009 News - If you fancy having a look-see or even joining I can thoroughly recommend and I've been a happy member, even if it is from a distance nowadays, since 1994. They have an open day in Romsey on 31 May which will have the huge 009 Sales attending - could be a very good day out for you, bring a heavily loaded wallet!
MickT
So, a long introduction deserves a long response - sorry about that. Once again, welcome and I hope you enjoy the Society
Thanks for your reply, Mick - and I'm a Mike - hadn't thought to change the sign up name yet. However, I've had a good look round the site and some of the threads on here in the few months I've been a member. So, thanks for the welcome.
Sorry for long intro and I'm grateful for your advice - I'll take a look at it more tomorrow, as well as the details for the Wessex Group - cheers.
I lived in Dorset until 1981 - mostly in Blandfold (Camp), Charlton Marshall and Iwerne Minster!
Cheers,
"M"
Quote from: M Oehlers on March 19, 2025, 00:47I lived in Dorset until 1981 - mostly in Blandfold (Camp), Charlton Marshall and Iwerne Minster!
Hello Mike
Aha! We are probably "brothers" then! I lived in Blandford Camp in 1975 (College Road - ugh!) and was on YofS 27 course. Followed by moving to Dorset and buying a house in Blandford town in 1994 and was there until 2020. Didn't quite pick up the accent but can do an "oo arr" OK which is totally lost on my newer neighbours in the valleys, who are all very depressed at present following last Saturdays rugby match!
By the way, you don't have to change your username if you prefer to use that - lots of people use their full names for that. I was just suggesting that if you use a preferred name as a signature it's good for informality - as we are supposed to all be friends on here (most of us are anyway!)
Mick
Mick - in '75 we were at 7 Sigs, Bad Salzuflen, although my Dad had me (occasionally) locked up at school, which had just moved to Iwerne. In later years, I was a Sgt in the CCF and had completed my Cert T course, ran the sigs squad and intended to join up - but I left school with a poor academic record but/and a full set of sports colours!
I did feel for our Welsh rugby cousins on Saturday - I was in Swansea in 2007 when we beat them 5-62 in a RWC warm up - but I know one thing - one day, they'll get their own back!
Cheers!
Mike
Hello Mike, and a warm welcome to this forum! Thanks for sharing your thoughtful history and ambitions.
Thanks Tom - I appreciate your welcome.
I hope to post my draft track plan soon. Many folk here seem to use some software for drawing these up - is there a basic, but decent free one that runs on Macs?
Cheers,
Mike.
Might I suggest a pencil, paper and a scanner?
Old school I know but it works for me...
Right - after several mock-ups, I've finished drawing up the graph paper - which took some time - and now I'm about to build the scanner - never tried one of these before, but I'll give it a go...
I had a quick scan around and it seems the most recommended track planning option for Macs' is this one https://www.railmodeller.com/express-edition-en.html.
There is a free limited edition and a paid for pro version.
Doesn't appear to be much else in the free category for a Mac that doesn't require Windows emulation and a lot of mucking about to make it work.
Quote from: Terry Mowles on March 23, 2025, 23:07I had a quick scan around and it seems the most recommended track planning option for Macs' is this one https://www.railmodeller.com/express-edition-en.html.
There is a free limited edition and a paid for pro version.
Doesn't appear to be much else in the free category for a Mac that doesn't require Windows emulation and a lot of mucking about to make it work.
Thanks, Terry - I'll take a look.
Cheers.
Mike.
Just a thought (I haven't used any of this sort of software) - is there anything available online that runs in a web browser?
That would get over the cross-platform issues.
Quote from: Hugh Norwood on March 24, 2025, 10:58Just a thought (I haven't used any of this sort of software) - is there anything available online that runs in a web browser?
That would get over the cross-platform issues.
There is TRAX. I've not tried it as I use AnyRail.
https://traxeditor.com/index.php/ (https://traxeditor.com/index.php/)
Edit: forget it. First thing that happened is it asked for my credit card details. It is not so much that I object to it changing to a paid-for product, but it doesn't even give you trial without entering credit card. Plus the presentation is decidedly amateurish with very little to show by way of its capabilities and examples. Pig in a poke territory possibly.
Possibly one for running on a Mac - XtrkCAD
https://sourceforge.net/p/xtrkcad-fork/wiki/Home/ (https://sourceforge.net/p/xtrkcad-fork/wiki/Home/)
I tried this donkeys years ago and 'Shortliner' Jack Trollope sent me a heap of layout designs (he was a micro layouts 'guru' and contributor to Carl Arnedt when they were alive).
It is (unless much changed) decidedly long in the tooth as far as the user interface is concerned, but one thing I really liked is that it had a built in simulator (of sorts and quite primitive). However it functioned enough to enable simple block locomotive and rolling stock items to be placed and moved that allowed capacity and clearances to be checked.
It is user supported and has what seems to be very active contributors, judging by the mailing list emails I still receive.
Edit: found a fairly recent video:
(changed to different video to the one I posted initially.)
Thanks, gents - I'll have a look at that one too. Cheers.
When planning a layout there are a few things that I would recommend:
Only use electriofrog points.
Avoid reverse curves that are less than 18" radius.
Avoid any curved track where you are going to couple items together.
Limit grades to 1 in 30.
In each case have leart this the hard way!
Brian - I am thankful for you having made those mistakes/miscalculations for us and sharing those experiences - invaluable!
Thanks for the tips - I realise that I am going to have to learn about frogs, electrical wiring and control systems - it's the bit I'm looking forward to the least. Fortunately, wife is an electrical engineer...
Do you have any experience using code 55 rail for making your own OO9 track? Will RTR stock not fall foul of the reduced rail height?
Thanks for your help.
I've found a bunch of useful articles on track codes/heights in the section on Trackwork - should have looked there first!
Quote from: M Oehlers on March 25, 2025, 11:20Do you have any experience using code 55 rail for making your own OO9 track? Will RTR stock not fall foul of the reduced rail height?
It all depends on what locos and rolling stock you are going to use. For example some older chassis, like the N gauge Arnold 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 have wheel flanges that are too large for the Peco 009 points, never mind code 55! There is still a very wide range of wheel profiles and flange sizes in use, even on 009 and H0e ready to run items, because of this going with code 55 can be limiting on what you can use.
I just use the Peco 009 points and track and turn down the Arnold loco wheel flanges!
This is going a bit off topic, but is still related to the question.
Code 80 rail is 80/1000th of an inch or a touch over 2 mm tall and code 55 is 55/1000th of an inch or about 1.4 mm tall.
The rim of the wheel flange may hit the sleepers if the wheels are too coarse or if the rail is too fine. However it may not only be the top of the sleepers that get in the way. The rail fixings, spikes, chairs or whatever it is the little lumps of plastic on Peco 'Crazy' track are supposed to represent are really quite chunky. It is far from being a definitive value, but I get a measurement of something like 1.2 mm from the top of the rail to the top of rail fixing. If the flanges did indeed foul them it would mean the rail had an 'effective' code of something like code 47.
I can't say for certain that the flanges would touch the top of the rail fixings. On some really coarse wheels I've seen, the flanges are as such an angle that they may actually slope away so much as to ride inside the rail fixing and still potentially touch the tops of the sleepers.
I think this may be the part of the reasoning behind Peco code 55 N scale track. The difference between code 80 and code 55 is buried completely in the track base which allows the rail fixings (chairs etc.) to be low profile and purely cosmetic and so reduce the working height of the rail very little.
It may be that actual code 55 rail (not code 55/80) that is 'sweated' or soldered neatly onto PCB sleepers without solder blobs doesn't reduce the working rail height all that much compared to code 80.
Without more accurate measurements I think all that can be said is that with neater, lower profile rail fixings rail of a height a bit less than code 80 may be workable with newer stock at least.
Brian and Graeme - lots to think about - thanks again.
So, without resorting to building my own track (eek!) and points (triple eek!), it seems like the most obvious route is to just use Peco set track rather than crazy track as the points work better. Bury the track (well, the sleepers) within the quarry areas to reduce the height of it all and hope that the slightly reduced width (of code 80 rail) helps.
Might taking out every other sleeper from Peco set track reduce its rigidity too much?
The Egger track looks very industrial and "crazy" - any thoughts on using that within the quarry areas? Can you make small bends in it (so it looks like it's really dodgy) without stock derailing? I'm predicting a "why don't you try it and run some stock over it? response, which I may do if I can find some old Egger stuff to abuse...
I'm not sure what you mean by Peco set track.
For 009/HOe Peco produce:
009 Setrack - straights, curves and dead frog points. Most people appear to be of the opinion that conductive frog (Electrofrog) make for better running.
009 'Crazy' track. Peco no longer call it this but Irregular sleeper track. It is the original version of their 009 Streamline range. (I think Streamline is just their way of saying flexible track range.) It includes flexible track and left, right and Y points which have conductive frogs. The points are less 'crazy' than the track.
009 Mainline track which has regularly spaced and aligned sleepers and more detailed rail fixings representing some sort of rail clip or chair and is also part of what they call their Streamline range. The range also includes larger radius points which are also electro frog.
The code 55 track is N scale and finer in appearance than their N scale set track and a little more so than their N scale Streamline track.
If you would like to disguise the appearance of the 009 track then as you say, ballasting, and weathering the ballast helps a lot, as does painting the sleepers to tone them down to reduce the plasticky appearance and painting the sides of the rails in a muted rusty grimy colour.
https://peco-uk.com/collections/oo-9-9mm/track (https://peco-uk.com/collections/oo-9-9mm/track)
Sorry - I meant streamline - confusing myself with the set track/crazy track duopoly.
Despite how it sounds, I am getting somewhere - honest!
Thanks again.
Mike.
Quote from: Mike Oehlers on March 25, 2025, 17:28Brian and Graeme - lots to think about - thanks again.
So, without resorting to building my own track (eek!) and points (triple eek!), it seems like the most obvious route is to just use Peco set track rather than crazy track as the points work better. Bury the track (well, the sleepers) within the quarry areas to reduce the height of it all and hope that the slightly reduced width (of code 80 rail) helps.
Might taking out every other sleeper from Peco set track reduce its rigidity too much?
The Egger track looks very industrial and "crazy" - any thoughts on using that within the quarry areas? Can you make small bends in it (so it looks like it's really dodgy) without stock derailing? I'm predicting a "why don't you try it and run some stock over it? response, which I may do if I can find some old Egger stuff to abuse...
All of the Peco HOe/009 points have pretty much the same construction. The 'Set Track' have the disadvantage of having 'dead frogs' (common crossings) which short wheelbase 4 wheel locos will not like, especially at slow shunting speeds, but their 9"(23cm) radius can be useful in industrial settings.
Peco used to make 9" electro-frog (live frog) points but they have not done so for probably 40 years, so whilst they do turn up 2nd hand they often need repairs, and on the slim chance you find some unused examples they are likely to be somewhat expensive!
As to using standard N scale points, again I'm not sure Peco currently produce 9" radius live frog points for N.
Taking all that on board I would try to use the live frog (electro-frog) points. The "irregular sleepers" (formerly "crazy track") left and right hand points have a 12" (30cm) radius. The Y point has a 15" (46cm) radius with irregular sleepers and the 'Mainline Sleeper' points also have a radius of 15" (46cm).
There are other ranges available, and I wonder if you have seen the IMON (ex-Shinohara) range of Code 60 track. The only UK source I know of is Scale Link (https://www.scalelink.co.uk/acatalog/Shinohara_Track___Pointwork__HOn2_5_.html). I used one Shinohara point a on an 009 layout with standard peco track and the 2 seemed to be compatible.
The one major drawback in using Peco (or any other) points is that you are limited to whatever they have produced, yet in the 'real world' tracks would be laid where they needed to go rather than being 'forced' into using a set range of 5 points (in the case of Peco).
If you are able to use a soldering iron, files and saws (razor saw or jeweller's piercing saw) then building your own track and points should be achievable, especially if you can get yourself a set of track gauges. Anything for N will do the job like these (https://www.dccconcepts.com/product/roller-gauge-whandle-n-scale-standard-9mm-2-pack/), these (https://www.clfinescale.co.uk/online-store/N-GAUGE-FINE-ROLLER-TRACK-GAUGES-9-0-MM-CODE-40-PAIR-p233811771), or these (https://www.clfinescale.co.uk/online-store/N-GAUGE-ROLLER-TRACK-GAUGES-9-0-MM-PECO-CODE-55-PAIR-p129151459), and these 3-point track gauges might also be useful (https://handlaidtrack.com/shop/?v=7885444af42e&wpf_filter_scale=hon30%7Cn&wpf_filter_cat_list_1=2112).
Rails can be those stripped out of old flexitrack, and for copper clad sleepers I've used the 3mm scale ones from here (https://www.3smr.co.uk/track12mm.html)
There are a range of 009 point templates available as a PDF - just drop me a message with your email address and I'll send you out a set made by Keith Angus.
The key thing is to get the track gauge that matches the code of rail, as if the rail head is 'sloppy' in the gauge (say using code 40 rail in a code 80 gauge) then the rails could end up closer, or further apart) and things may derail.
Until you try how do you know you can not do it?
That then opens up the possibility of track work that 'flows' rather than having dog legs and the like to meet up with the rail ends of the Peco (or whoever) points, and if a situation needs a 3 way point then so be it - they are not much harder to make than a 'normal' point.
Quote from: JulienW on March 26, 2025, 11:09The "irregular sleepers" (formerly "crazy track") left and right hand points have a 12" (30cm) radius. The Y point has a 15" (46cm) radius with irregular sleepers and the 'Mainline Sleeper' points also have a radius of 15" (46cm).
The Y point and the 'mainline' Peco 009 points are quoted by Peco as 457mm radius. That works out as 18" radius. (Not 15")
To put these curves into the real world settings. The Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland curves work out at about 23" radius and the Talyllyn railway with its side buffers works out at about 52" radius in 00 scale!
It is all about reasonable comprimise when it comes to model railways. In general the larger the radius to closer it will be to the rear world, but the more room it will take up on a modle railway.
As mentioned I would always avoid points with dead plastic frogs and stick with electrifrogs only.
The last of the Peco 009 9" radius electrofrog points were made in 1980!! So that is 45 years ago now!!
They are very hard to find in hood order now, they were also longer than the 009 set track dead frog points that are made today.
As well as dead frog points I would also strongly recomend that you plan your layout with out any diamond crossings or any dual gauge crossings.
All the available diamond and dual gauge crossings have two dead plastic sections on each rail, so can casue double the problems you get with dead frog points! You may well also find four wheel locos with a wheel base that placed both wheels on the dead sections!!
Gents - Julien & Brian - many more thanks to you both for your continued advice - its what I need and it is making more sense to me, know that I have also read through many of the "trackwork" articles on here too.
I can see that avoiding cross-overs and too many points will make my life easier, as will sticking to the Peco track, with electro-frogs to start with.
Does it sound sensible (with my quarry setting) to perhaps use the Peco track into the quarry and yard (and fiddle yard and out-of-sight track), but then have some hand-made track winding its way around the quarry internally and not encountering any further point work? I've seen a diagram somewhere showing how you can join code 55 and 80 rail by filing off some of some (~ 1mm?) of the rail.
Out of interest, is there anybody out there that hand-builds spec 009 points to order?
Cheers
Mike.
I want to try to make the track - full confession, I've see a soldering iron once or twice - but now I don't want it to take over the work effort for this project.
I don't make my own track, but I would suggest you make up a short length just as a test to see how difficult/easy it is. Regarding the difference in rail heigth between codes, perhaps rather than filing off some of the rail how about simply raising the lower track to match the "taller" track?
We have a member in the S Yorks group (Allen) who made his own track in code 80 for his first layoaut and is now making track in code 55 for his next one! He makes it look dead easy, I must say!
If you want code 55 rail in the quarry then you could possibly use Peco N scale code 55 and disguise or bury the sleepers.
Quite a lot of industrial track was ballasted that way and all sorts of stuff was used as ballast. An obvious one for a quarry would be quarry dust.
(https://becster.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Threlkeld-Hunslet-1440x810.jpg)
https://becster.com/threlkeld-quarry-mining-museum/ (https://becster.com/threlkeld-quarry-mining-museum/)
Likewise, if you wanted to use code 80 track then any form, Crazy, Mainline or N scale would do if the sleepers are hidden. I've seen Kato N gauge Unitrack used and it is hard to tell because it is well hidden.
The 'hint' of what the sleepered track can be made by exposing short sections of perhaps just a few sleepers or even just the ends of the sleepers visible and modifying the track so those sections have the 'correct' sleepering.
Hugh - I'd seen a picture of the filing method in either the thematic track tab on this site or in the Bob Bernard NG Modelling in OO9 scale book, but your suggestion does sound so "Occamly" simple that it is far more up my street!
Graeme - I'd planned the sleeper burying and there is a sand quarry near me - I shall go there soon.
One of the visual effects Ive been thinking of is having kinks in the track - as you can see in the photo you posted, on the empty siding on the right, adjacent to the last wagon, but I fear derailments and the like.
Something to test on a test bed.
If you attempt to put kinks in the track it will probably need very careful laying and thorough testing before proceeding.
A couple of observations: kinked track in photographs of the real thing shows up most effectively in lengthwise shots with a lot of foreshortening and often taken with a telephoto lens. Achieving the same perspective in a model could be challenging and the temptation may be to exaggerate reality for it to show up. The mesmerizing videos of cane trains, peat trains and so waddling and swaying as they come into shot and pass the camera may take place over a quarter of a mile or more - perhaps 5 m in OO.
Another challenge will be to get the models to sway convincingly and not rock and lurch dementedly. If a loco does rock there is a chance it will lose wheel contact and power. I you do want kinks or undulations it might be an idea to make sure that the track is absolutely flat and any deviation is horizontal only. On micro layouts I have started gluing track straight onto material such as 3 mm MDF and even 009 Setrack onto 3 mm HIPS (vacuum forming polystyrene) sheet to make a sort of pre-ballasted track inspired by Iain Rice's floating track laying system.
Small models such as Quarry Hunslets can waddle without any prompting and it can be a matter of careful track laying and fettling to prevent wheels dipping, especially around points.
If it is purely a static visual effect you are after then I've achieved that inadvertently by laying a length of flexitrack that I'd been 'playing' with, bending it into various curves before straightening it out before putting it back in the mailing tube I store track in. When I laid it in what should have been a fairly straight run it wibbled and wobbled all over the place when I looked at it using the old mirror trick to check alignment at track joins.
... and, of course, even small locos in the real world have springs that help compensate for rough track. I think of commercially available RTR chassis, only the new Kato chassis are compensated.
If you use any N gauge track then the rail chairs will still be seen and they will be very obvioulsy too close together, that is unless you cover them. If you do cover the rail chairs then there will not be enough clearance for some of the wheel flanges used on 009 and N gauge locos and rolling stock.
So once again using Peco 009 track is the best option even if you intend to cover the sleepers.
Regarding kinks in the track these should be avoided.
To get good running at slow speeds 009 track has to be laid spot on with no kinks dips or steps. It is very common to get problems with kinks at rail joints. Pre-bending the rail is needed in many cases to avoid these kinks at joints.
One trick to make the rail used in Peco 009 track look a lot better is to paint the sides of the rails in a matt rust colour. I also paint the ballast matt rust as well. The eye off the observer then only sees the clean railhead and the actual oversize size of the rail is 'hidden'.
Railway modeling is all about comprimise, for me I would rather have 100% good running over exact railsize every time.
Brian, Hugh and Graeme - all points well made, so thanks for the tips.
(Real) work has got in the way recently, but I can now provide an update - layout will change name to Mogridge-Bray Quarry Railway. Here's the plan - 3m x 1.5m in dimensions, in Powerpoint - I will do a version using proper Peco points/track, so I see how it fits in reality. Still, I have nowhere to build/put it yet, so I am practising modelling skills and will post on that elsewhere and later this month. Comments - especially if you can see pitfalls/concerns.
That is very impressive work using PowerPoint!
If you of a mind to use a computer package to help you develop layout design ideas then it could be worth your time looking at some of the software available. It would take care of geometry issues. Two popular ones I've used offer free size-limited versions (not time-limited).
My choice is AnyRail. I find it more intuitive than other software but it may be the way I think and how it relates to other drawing software I've used. Another is SCARM. It is fairly easy to use too, but I found it a little frustrating in that I seemed to be led to drawing what it wanted rather than what I wanted. I've seen reports from people who rank them the other way round. SCARM offers more 'track sections' in the free version, but what can be done with each section is more limited. The 3D rendering is better it seems in SCARM but I find the user interface a bit old-fashioned and prefer the design tools in AnyRail. I ended up paying for an AnyRail licence as I felt it was worth it. SCARM is a bit less expensive but I'm not sure what their update policy is.
https://www.anyrail.com/ (https://www.anyrail.com/)
https://www.scarm.info/index.php (https://www.scarm.info/index.php)
Graeme thank you - I've looked at those two packages already - they don't support Mac OS, unfortunately, which is a shame as I liked the look of the Anyrail package. But thanks for the tips!
Powerpoint is quite good - but its hard to preconfigure set points/curves accurately; there is a tutorial by a German modeller who has used it to an even higher level - no several orders higher - but its trilingual (German, Italian and English) and many aspects are only quickly described:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGNMhc2ZfWI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGNMhc2ZfWI)
Its from the BBM 1930 Youtube site:- https://www.youtube.com/@BBM1930s/videos (https://www.youtube.com/@BBM1930s/videos)
I'm looking at the XtrkCAD (which you recommended originally) offering at the moment, which is free and Mac OS-supported. The manual for it is the same length as my image processing software!