Improving PECO streamline medium radius points

[SteveyDee68]

I have a number of secondhand PECO streamline medium and long radius points, all insulfrog type. My Hattons Andrew Barclay runs through all of them, but rocks alarmingly as its wheels cross the nose of the point frog. Likewise rolling stock also lurches through the points.

 

They are not fastened down yet (still at play and plan stage!) but I have used double sided tape to ensure that they are flat and level, but the problem persists. Some are much better than others.

 

Other than discarding the second hand points and replacing with brand new, what can be done to improve the running of stock and locos through the points? My stock ranges from Airfix and Mainline through to bang up to date Bachman and Dapol, as do my locos.

 

Any suggested remedies not involving building my own track gratefully accepted (and I've searched the forum to no avail - if this has been previously dealt with I would appreciate a point in the right direction ... no pun intended!)

 

Thank you all

[Pete the Elaner]

How badly do they rock & where? If they sink into the gap at the frog itself, then this is a trait of the loose tolerances of the major gauges,N OO, O & even EM. For 4mm scale OO-SF helps & P4 eliminates it completely. For 7mm, then S7 is the answer. They all involve building your own track & P4/S7 involve a lot more work on top of that.

 

What gauge & size of rail are you using?

[alfsboy]

It always pays to  just sand the bottom of all peco points flat with some  fairly rough wet and dry glued to a flat board  .its amazing how not flat they are .my Barclay test  creeps  perfectly through NMRA code 83 Peco  on my American layout but you may have old code 100  which will allow pizza cutters to run through hence the drop .The NMRA guys stuck little plastic shims to the frogs but others will be more informative as I have never had code 100 for 50 -1/2  decades (gawd) so didnt bother

[johnb]

One issue that can arise with Peco insulfrog points is that the plastic crossing nose wears down, aggravating the tendency for the wheels to drop. The end of the frog should be sharp and level, but as Alfsboy says it is crucial that they are also laid absolutely level. After the experience with insulfrogs on an exhibition layout years ago I went for electrofrog.

If some are worse than others then I would suggest that frog wear is a factor

 

I don't buy secondhand points because it is difficult to see the issues with them.

[SteveyDee68]

Thanks for all the replies.

 

Having been an avid armchair modeller for at least four of the five decades I have been on this planet, I have watched the emergence of such things as EM, P4, finescale OO etc and marvelled at anyone working to those standards. I have read threads describing step by step how to make your own points but even the self-proclaimed bodgers have skill sets light years away from my own! One day...

 

In the meantime, on a limited budget, I am attempting to create a shunting layout to enable me to finally get to grips with actual modelling! I know that building my own track to more accurate standards would be better but for now I am trying to get things running using proprietary locos, stock and track.

 

It is code 100 rail - I've a length of code 75 flexible track (secondhand!) which is clearly better, but rarely do I see second hand code 75 points for sale, so for now it is the pizza-cutter wheel accepting rails for me!

 

Thanks for the tips about sanding down the bottom of the points - will try that

[hayfield]

SteveyDee

 

One of the issues is that the stock you are using has been made to a finer standard than the track you are using, the problem may be that the wheel back to back measurement is wider on the wheels than the check rail gap. A lot of the track systems are designed for older coarser wheeled stock, modern stock is much finer which in reality works better on track built to finer standards

 

The first job is to find the cause of the problem, is it wheel drop between the wing rails and Vee? or are the wheels hitting the tip of the vee?

 

One solution I have read is (providing your stock is of similar quality) to stick a sliver of plasticard to the check rail reducing the gap between the check and stock rails, the idea is to pull the wheels away from the tip of the stock rails stopping the wheels from bumping into the tip of the vee

 

Please do not put yourself down by thinking you cannot make track, it is a very simple process requiring simple tools, but needs gauges and tuition.  Most have both the skill sets required and the tools, obtaining the correct gauges may be the biggest issue and there is plenty of online tuition ( be aware some of it on the internet is very poor or downright bad). However nothing wrong with RTR track or even modifying it to a better standard

[Harlequin]

You may be causing yourself unnecessary hassle by trying to use the old points. It might be better all round to buy new ones, and then you could make choices about electrofrog vs. insulfrog, code 75 vs. code 100, etc.

 

It's very easy to replace the pizza-cutter wheels in old rolling stock with newer, finer versions.

 

Old loco wheels are more tricky but since old locos can also be difficult to convert to DCC (if you're going that way) that may be another area where it's more sensible to move on rather than spending time and effort on them.

 

(Speaking from experience!)

[PatB]

If the loco  and stock don't actually derail you could always tell yourself it's an accurate rendition of running on gnarly, ill-maintained industrial trackwork .

[Poor Old Bruce]

SteveyDee

 

One of the issues is that the stock you are using has been made to a finer standard than the track you are using, the problem may be that the wheel back to back measurement is wider on the wheels than the check rail gap. A lot of the track systems are designed for older coarser wheeled stock, modern stock is much finer which in reality works better on track built to finer standards

 

The first job is to find the cause of the problem, is it wheel drop between the wing rails and Vee? or are the wheels hitting the tip of the vee?

 

One solution I have read is (providing your stock is of similar quality) to stick a sliver of plasticard to the check rail reducing the gap between the check and stock rails, the idea is to pull the wheels away from the tip of the stock rails stopping the wheels from bumping into the tip of the vee

 

Please do not put yourself down by thinking you cannot make track, it is a very simple process requiring simple tools, but needs gauges and tuition.  Most have both the skill sets required and the tools, obtaining the correct gauges may be the biggest issue and there is plenty of online tuition ( be aware some of it on the internet is very poor or downright bad). However nothing wrong with RTR track or even modifying it to a better standard

 

Some older wheels had much wider treads which meant that the tread was able to contact the crossing nose and the wing rail of old Code 100 points at the same time. Newer wheels have much narrower (nearer to scale) treads so that they drop off the wing rail before meeting the crossing nose, that is where the bump comes from in my experience. The only way round it is to shim both the wing rail and the check rail to bring the flangeways down to something like 1.5mm (60 thou or 1/16th inch in old money) to give the wheel tread more support at the wing rail and bring the flange away from the crossing nose. Trial and error will tell you if you can get away with anything finer. New Code 75 points have much narrower flangeways than old Code 100. When I built my layout (when Adam was a lad it seems!) I had to modify one dead frog point by inserting a piece of rail instead of the plastic bit between the wing rails and the closure rails to get better running - that was just where my Pug stopped when spotting wagons on the weighbridge. You may come unstuck if you want to use old wheel standards as well as new. As has already been said, changing carriage and wagon wheels is dead easy, locos may be a bit more difficult.

[alfsboy]

I use Code 83 insulfrog as I mainly have US 8 wheelers which normally cause no issue .They are useless for most small short wheelbase locos but even they run OK with  say alive so I havnt bothered upgrading .My Hattons Barclay  0-4-0 ran through them at low speed fine oddly ,I have a US based switching layout .

[hayfield]

I did mention the fact that more modern wheels are finer in standards and that the solution I suggested is only viable if all wheel sets are of similar quality. If using a mixture of standards the coarsest must be the guiding factor

 

The gap between the tip of the vee and knuckle joint is calculated by multiplying the crossing angle and the flangeway gap, eg, 1-5 angle multiplied by 1.25 mm = 6.25 mm. If the angle is larger and or gap wider then the distance will increase, as you say another solution is to make a support, that is if it is wheel drop and not the wheel hitting the tip of the vee 

[The Johnster]

The ideal situation is one in which all your trackwork and all of your wheels are to a common profile and back to back measurement, which is one of the main points of building yourself to EM, S4, or even finescale 00 specifications.  For most of us who rely to varying extents on RTR and proprietary replacement wheels, this is about as achievable as a solution to the Middle East problem that everyone is happy with.  Standards vary within individual companies' ranges, and your layout is always a compromise between scale appearance, fitting a reasonable track plan into a limited space, and functionality.  Extremes are S4 and Hornby tinplate 0 guage, and most of us occupy the indeterminate mists of the no man's land between with varying degrees of success.  

 

New points may solve some of your AB's problems, and are advisable, but if, like me, you have shallow pockets I appreciate that this may not be the solution for you, Steve.  If the loco runs smoothly and controllably without stalling through the frog I wouldn't worry too much if it lurches about a bit; this is proper behaviour for a small 4 coupled tank engine with a high centre of gravity because of the saddle tank and outside cylinders that provoke an impression of a walking duck under load.  Make sure the points are flat underneath, laid on a flat surface, smoothly to the adjoining rails, and scrupulously clean at the electrical contact points where the blades close to the stock rails, and at the rail head surfaces and the wheel treads, backs, and pickup strips, and then your AB will be given the best chance possible!

[Butler Henderson]

Peco have tightened up the clearances on the Code 100 Streamline points; possibly the second hand ones are say 1970/80s ones. A contrast is my early 1980s Hornby Rocket which at the time ran reasonably okay through Peco Streamline points but today fails to pass through (Off topic - any one know of suitable replacement wheels, it has a split chassis - yes they did exist before Mainline)

[royaloak]

A couple of questions if I may-

 

Why are you using second hand points

 

Why do you think the previous owners are selling then points?

[SteveyDee68]

Once again, thanks for the collective advice. I called in on Jim at The Locoshed in Whitefield and have come away with a back to back gauge to check my stock and locos. Will then be looking very carefully at the nose of each point to see if I can see any wear or damage.

 

I could live with my Andrew Barclay waddling through the points, but seeing a classs 45 or class 66 do the same suggests an issue to be solved.

 

Once I have got some more experience, I will investigate code 75 and start the process of rewheeling my stock!

[johnb]

A good way to check for wear at the frogs is to lay a straight edge scross the point, if there's any serious wear it will show up pretty well. I use a 6inch (150mm) steel ruler.

Edited December 14, 2018 by johnb

[SteveyDee68]

A couple of questions if I may-

 

Why are you using second hand points

 

Why do you think the previous owners are selling then points?

Budget constraints ❌ - supply teacher, effectively zero hour contract but therefore not "unemployed". I am modelling (or, rather, starting again after a *long* period of armchair modelling!) as a way of combatting stress. And far more comfortable in this weather than golf!

 

Sometimes (many times?!) I read in these forums of modellers changing tack, scale, gauge etc. So they may well dispose of items no longer of interest to them. Somehow, I cannot imagine a modeller deliberately selling dodgy track with the intention of passing on the problem to someone else ... just doesn't seem to fit the 'psychological profile' I have of a typical modeller.

 

But the cynic in me gets where you are coming from. The recycler in me doesn't like to see things consigned to landfill before having a go at making use of them again, hence my query.

[royaloak]

Those zero hour contracts should be banned, the minimum, and I mean absolute minimum, should be 16 hours a week, thanks for the replies, I do understand where you are coming from, good luck sorting the issues.

[hayfield]

Budget constraints ❌ - supply teacher, effectively zero hour contract but therefore not "unemployed". I am modelling (or, rather, starting again after a *long* period of armchair modelling!) as a way of combatting stress. And far more comfortable in this weather than golf!

 

Sometimes (many times?!) I read in these forums of modellers changing tack, scale, gauge etc. So they may well dispose of items no longer of interest to them. Somehow, I cannot imagine a modeller deliberately selling dodgy track with the intention of passing on the problem to someone else ... just doesn't seem to fit the 'psychological profile' I have of a typical modeller.

 

But the cynic in me gets where you are coming from. The recycler in me doesn't like to see things consigned to landfill before having a go at making use of them again, hence my query.

 

 

SteveyDee

 

Nothing wrong in buying second hand, sometimes even broken/not working items can be bought back to life

 

This issue could also prove an invaluable piece of learning both on track and rolling stock. The former on how to modify a RTR item to operate better, the latter in how to alter an item to improve its running charistics. In both cases learning the importance of stock and track being in harmony with each other. 

 

Some of the best models are those where they have been built on a budget and certainly encourages a certain amount of learning how to use materials to hand, good luck

[Ray Von]

My latest build is almost entirely second hand track and runs like a charm! I also use second hand loco's and enjoy buying second hand buildings that are in a right state - and doing them up! For me that's part of the fun of the hobby, and I feel a bit let down if I have to buy new - not solely for costs sake, but the satisfaction of creating something from what someone else might consider "scrap" can be a very rewarding one.

 

I'm not suggesting you burden yourself with the task of renovating broken down trains and repairing twisted old bits of track! But don't dismiss used products entirely, you obviously have to discriminate between the absolute rubbish and the salvageable treasures.

 

PS I'm making a shunting layout in the new year (from parts!), so I'd be interested to see how you approach yours.

[Butler Henderson]

SteveyDee

 

Nothing wrong in buying second hand,

Agree - in terms of track its just a case of checking its in good condition and up to date nearly in terms of frog and checkrail clearances. On Warmington http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/127304-warmington/?hl=warmington as originally built virtually all the track was second hand - some reclaimed from earlier layouts rest purchased - typically as "unused" off ebay , The only brand new purchase was the double slip in the loco yard and that immediately went faulty as one of the track power linkages on it failed and the line to the coal stage had to have an extra feed fitted to compensate.

[Il Grifone]

The old bodge for wheels dropping into the crossing gap was to fill in the botton of the gap so that the wheels run on their flanges.  Obviously this only works if the flange depth is the same on all wheels. Much R-T-R track already has this infill but set for the coarser wheels common in the eighties (basically Hornby Dublo standards dating from 1938). but modern wheels are finer and the infill is too deep. A layer of card in the gap will solve the problem, but I would stress that it only works for flanges of the same depth. Any non-standard wheels will still drop in or bounce.

[Harlequin]

The old bodge for wheels dropping into the crossing gap was to fill in the botton of the gap so that the wheels run on their flanges.  Obviously this only works if the flange depth is the same on all wheels. Much R-T-R track already has this infill but set for the coarser wheels common in the eighties (basically Hornby Dublo standards dating from 1938). but modern wheels are finer and the infill is too deep. A layer of card in the gap will solve the problem, but I would stress that it only works for flanges of the same depth. Any non-standard wheels will still drop in or bounce.

What about electrical pick-up? Where a flange runs on cardboard it may lift that wheel off any adjacent track and could potentially lift many other wheels off the track if it's too thick, making electrical pick-up much more tenuous.

Edited December 18, 2018 by Harlequin

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

This is a good example of where taking an engineering approach pays off. If you decide to pack the bottom of the flange gap to support flanges, then you must attend to consistent flange depth such that no wheel will be lifted. It is relatively easy to turn off excessive flange depth and reprofile the edge. I have been doing this almost since I was in short trousers.

 

It is extra simple now that we have small rotary hand tools at reasonable prices. With a small grindstone at an angle to the wheelset to both drive and grind, you can go around the wheels of a wagon or bogie, (a little on each at a time to avoid overheating) very quickly. As for locos, run them on flying leads and work the flanges down on an old  tool sharpening stone. (Ye olde Triang Princess now runs successfully on current code 75 with this brutal treatment.) The most important bit: always with eye protection.

[Il Grifone]

An ideal solution, but not for someone who feels unable to build track I feel. I have messed up wheelsets trying to turn them down in the past.

 

Any filler has to be chosen to not lift the wheels. Contact is already lost as we are discussing insulfrog. I did try a metal infill many years ago, but it was less than successful.

Edited December 18, 2018 by Il Grifone