Which track to use?

[LlandudnoJunction]

I am in need of some help choosing which track I need to get for my model. I was thinking of using peco 100 set track. I am also looking at Hornby but don't like the fact they haven't got electro frogs on their points. I have read on hear Bachman is another good choice.

My model era is set in 90,s 00's and mainly based around the west coast operators ie Virgin, cross country, arriva etc.

Should I stick with my choice or choose a different one?

[darrel]

I'm using peco, one thing to consider for the period you are modelling is concrete sleepers. It sounds like you are doing a main line so concrete sleepers would be most prototypical. To he best of my knowledge peco are the only ones that make track with concrete sleepers.

[Joseph_Pestell]

If using Setrack, then Peco have not got metal crossings (frogs) either.

 

You might want to use sectional track for tight curves in hidden sections. Peco/Hornby are much the same for that. You might want to take a look at Shinohara because they do a bigger range of radii.

 

But for the visible parts of the layout, you should use flexible track with large and medium radius points. The question then is whether to use Peco (Code 75 or Code 100) or one of the makes (e.g. SMP) with sleepering that is more to 1:76 scale.

[davetheroad]

It depends on the size of your layout and how complex you want your pointwork to be. I have used Peco code 100 and setrack and recently discovered Shinohara do code 100 as well. They have a better range of curved turnouts and I plan to test and use a few of them in. One disadvantage is they do not have latching point blades like Peco ones.

 

For utmost simplicity look at Kato HO, it has built in ballast and the electric points have an integral motor. They work beautifully or at least my 'N' scale ones did! The disadvantage is the largest point is 'medium' and there are no diamond crossing, curved points or 'Y' available.

 

I wish someone would produce a clip-on point motor that was only 6mm deep. then i could have the simplicity of Kato and the flexibility of Peco etc.

[Andy Hayter]

Some excellent points being made, but one thing to consider if you do think about using Peco flexible track is that it is not really suited to small radius curves, where it is very difficult to get a smooth curve and to get a neat join between rails on the curve.  If your 00 curves are below a 2ft radius I would stick with a set track type option.  In fact personally I would not use flexi track at less than 3ft radius - but that is just me.

[DCB]

I am generally with Andy Hayter on this. Don't get too hung up on either or if you use Peco code 100

 

I have used peco streamline code 100 flexi, Streamline points and Set track curves and straights on the same layout..  

 

Streamline code 100 flexi does not like staying curved to 2ft or less, even with the webs cut etc it still tries to straighten out.  I had difficulty finding "4th" radius curves and larger in set track so I have cut webs and eased cheap second-hand 2nd radius curves out to 20" or even 24" radius with considerable success, I even blend the curves with transition curves by mixing and matching set track rails and streamline sleeper bases.

 

On small layouts I have used set track straights as they stay straight, When you are trying to create a convincing double track main line in 6X4  absolutely straight track is essential even if the full size looks like a dogs hind leg.  I cut set track to length exactly like flexi 

 

I only used set track points on my "bed" layout as it is 6X4 and 2nd radius curves are essential but it is terribly toylike and the track spacing is massive which reduces the number of sidings you can pack in. I saw lumps off set track points to minimise the problem, but the streamline 2ft Y point is a lot smaller than any set track point.

 

I have some awful "GT" Track which is sort of code 100 except lots of flanges run on the rail chairs. 

My problem with code 75 is  flanges foul on some older stock, some not that old in fact, while Peco code 100 will cope with 1960's Triang with a bit of fiddling

[Crewlisle]

My 00 gauge layout Crewlisle (the mark 4 version!) has been in existence for about 40 years.  It has been successfully exhibited over the last 30 years from local exhibitions to Alexandra Palace, Hornby Magazine’s Great Electric Train Show & returning to the NEC this year.  My comments on my track are:

 

1. It is all Peco Code 100 with electro frogs.
2. The points do NOT need to be modified, fitted with polarity switches, etc to work effectively – none of mine are.  They can be used straight out of the box without any modification.  The point springs are strong enough for positive electrical contact providing the inner faces of the movable blades are kept clean.  The number of polarity failures I have had over the last 30 years can be counted on one hand.
3. The majority of the points are operated by Peco solenoid motors using stud contact on mini track diagrams.  If you want to use realistic slow motion motors like ‘Tortoise’, I cannot help as I have never used them.
4. To prove it I have a total of 30 points, which I only started having to renew about 5 years ago as they had ‘worn out’.  Also the new points have much smaller clearances because they are not expected to cater for the old Triang & other manufacturers’ coarse wheel standards.
5. All tight curves are in the tunnels & are mostly Peco Setrack.
6. My minimum radii with flexible track is 19”.  Quite easy to do providing you use the old shipbuilding adage about curves – ‘If a curve looks right & smooth, it is right!’.
7. The big plus for Peco Code 100 is that it is widely available.  Code 75 is obviously much finer & realistic but is easily damaged when cutting.  An expensive mistake with points!

[Joseph_Pestell]

My tuppence in the bucket: try Roco. Rocoline is Code 83, so caters for somewhat coarser flanges better then Peco Code 75. Points include standard and large radius, curved versions in 3 radii, single and double slip and a-symmetrical 3-way. Flex track both wood and concrete sleepers available (no concrete points, that's all wood sleepers. Mind, plastic wood (and concrete) ) Sectional track in various lengths and 6 fixed radii.

 

Roco also sells their Geoline range of track work. That's Rocoline looking like Kato Unitrack (but they're not the same, nor interchangeable!)   Not bad for temporary layouts (the carpet variety) as it has the regular running qualities of Rocoline, but it really looks toy-like.

 

I don't know if anyone stocks it in the UK. I think that it would be a lot more expensive than Peco.

[LlandudnoJunction]

Many thanks to all who replied and special thanks to David and crewlisle for great detailed information which I will use. Hope to start a blog soon on the layout with photos so you all can see its progress. Cheers Mark

[EddScott]

Interesting thread. 

 

Following the demise of my last layout attempt due to a house move I sold all my code 100. My thinking was that if I get the opportunity to start another layout it will be using code 75 as it looks much nice when photos and makes the rolling stock look much bigger (to my eye anyway)

 

However, the space I have for a new modern image layout is quite a bit smaller than the last and I'm going to needing to use small radius curves that originally intended - although no lower than R3.  Think code 100 is going to be the least problematic.

 

I have one piece of code 75 - a curved point and to be fair you can barely see the curve

 

I will get a couple of Shinohara track pieces and see how it looks to Peco code 100. Kicking myself for not keeping that old track - was more than enough for the new space!

[Gwiwer]

1.  There is no definitive "right answer" to the question.  We can - and are happy to - offer opinions and experience.

 

2.  You can mix brands of track though there can be issues obtaining good joints.  You can also mix track codes and have the more realistic code 75 on show with the slightly more robust code 100 (which has a little more metal and plastic in it) for your hidden areas; special converter joiners are available.

 

3.  You can obtain good curvature using flexible track and it will accept tight radii.  Where flexi scores over fixed geometry is that you can create transition curves meaning your trains don't lurch from straight to minimum radius and back but ease in and out of curves.  Most models prefer this and many will accept the tightest of radii briefly if eased through the whole curve.  

 

4.  A length or two of flexi isn't a massive investment.  You can buy a couple of pieces and experiment without breaking the bank to see how well it works for you.  If it really doesn't then there's always the fixed geometry brands.

 

5.  Good luck, enjoy and report back!

[Mallard60022]

Maybe this has been asked a hundred times?

What is the min radius 'set track'  (eg Hornby/Peco/ some other brand) I could get away with out of sight on what is otherwise will be a Code 75, well laid track layout ?

I would mainly be using RTR locos and stock but I do have several kit builds and the locos would probably struggle below 30". I could get a few 24" bits to see what happens with those, but know that loads of people must have had this min radius situation when building a layout.

Thanks.

Phil

[Mallard60022]

The minimum radius behind the scenes depends on the stock you use. A train of fourwheelers will take a smaller curve then a full rake HST.

I wasn't clear enough. It will be typical BR stock with Pacifics down to 0.4.4.T. There will be no platforms or anythinfg as these curves are simply to do end curves in as small a space as possible for a continuous circuit. Typical roundy roundy.

P

[edcayton]

Whilst I take Rick's point about transition curves, I can't see why you would want to bend flexi-track to tighter than the largest set-track which, I think is around 24" for Peco. AFAIK all rtr stuff is supposed to go round radius 2 (don't know what that is at the mo), but this will depend on couplings, corridor connections, loco detailing parts etc.

 

It is possible to get close-coupled main line stock with corridor connections round tight curves, try Keene Systems-their stand at shows is impressive. I have not (yet) tried their products. Obviously the stock looks silly, but you say it is for hidden track.

 

Don't forget that you will need more generous clearances and you will have to increase the spacing between adjacent tracks. This is pushing the envelope and a degree of trial and error will be needed. Don't forget that when your friends come to play with HST's and the like there may be problems.

 

Ed

[edcayton]

Phil, I hope I answered your question, but surely if your kit-built pacifics need 3 ft then that has to be your minimum radius?

 

Ed

[Mallard60022]

Phil, I hope I answered your question, but surely if your kit-built pacifics need 3 ft then that has to be your minimum radius?

 

Ed

Pacifics are RTR Bulleids.

My kit builds are S15 4.6.0s and some Standards 5, 4 and 3,2 Tanks.

Ta.#

P

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

What is the min radius 'set track'  (eg Hornby/Peco/ some other brand) I could get away with out of sight on what is otherwise will be a Code 75, well laid track layout ?

I would mainly be using RTR locos and stock but I do have several kit builds and the locos would probably struggle below 30". I could get a few 24" bits to see what happens with those, but know that loads of people must have had this min radius situation when building a layout....

I'd run the experiment with the planned trains of your own stock, on track you have laid, rather than take any advice. It's not what other people have done that matters, but what you can achieve; your own workmanship is a piece of the equation.

 

Wanting an OO layout on which full size steam era ECML train formations would run with complete reliability, I arrived at a 30" minimum radius for running lines. I would have liked a smaller radius, but there it is, Even a DCC system trip will not derail a train moving at the maximum scale speed for the class of traffic it represents. Very helpful that, on off-scene track.

[ejstubbs]

Whilst I take Rick's point about transition curves, I can't see why you would want to bend flexi-track to tighter than the largest set-track which, I think is around 24" for Peco. AFAIK all rtr stuff is supposed to go round radius 2 (don't know what that is at the mo)

 

The largest Peco setrack is radius 4 which is 572mm/22½".  Radius 2 is 438mm/17¼".

[Mike Storey]

It's readily available from English-speaking German webshops True, it's not cheap, but (almost by definition) quality never is, isn't it? The one thing I didn't mention (it was late!) is that Rocoline is based on railway practices in German speaking countries and therefore may not look British. But if that's important to a builder, then surely he wouldn't be choosing between Hornby and Peco, and get some SMP kits instead

 

Maybe, but Peco makes Code 83 already and it sells in far greater quantities here in France (and I believe in the USA) than does Code 75, with much the same variety in turnouts and crossings as for Code 75. Plus, it is much cheaper than Roco.

[Pacific231G]

Maybe, but Peco makes Code 83 already and it sells in far greater quantities here in France (and I believe in the USA) than does Code 75, with much the same variety in turnouts and crossings as for Code 75. Plus, it is much cheaper than Roco.

That's interesting Mike.

In H0, Peco's code 75 seems to match modern French main line sleeper sizes and spacing (60cm) pretty well though it's rather oversleepered for most older track but isn't the 83 Line built to NMRA specs. very much oversleepered for any European prototype with American ties also being narrower than European sleepers?  I know that some French modellers use SMP for double champignon (bullhead) track but to me the sleepers do look wrong in H0. It's a shame because I have some SMP point kits I'd quite like to use for a Ouest/Etat layout but am rather balking at modifying all the timbering.

[kevinlms]

I have some awful "GT" Track which is sort of code 100 except lots of flanges run on the rail chairs. 

 

A friend of mine sent his wife off to a local shop (obviously well trained!), when he was sick & specified Peco Streamline, as always. She came back with this GT rubbish. Apparently the shop owner had taken advantage of a woman, who knew nothing and sold her this as 'the same as Peco, except much cheaper!.

He took it straight back the next day for exchange and was told, they would only give half the price back as it was used - it wasn't.

 

Needless to say he never entered that shop again. I wonder how many times they sold the same lengths of track & how many customers they alienated? Certainly in later years, the lack of customers was significant!

[Mike Storey]

That's interesting Mike.

In H0, Peco's code 75 seems to match modern French main line sleeper sizes and spacing (60cm) pretty well though it's rather oversleepered for most older track but isn't the 83 Line built to NMRA specs. very much oversleepered for any European prototype with American ties also being narrower than European sleepers?  I know that some French modellers use SMP for double champignon (bullhead) track but to me the sleepers do look wrong in H0. It's a shame because I have some SMP point kits I'd quite like to use for a Ouest/Etat layout but am rather balking at modifying all the timbering.

True, but the rail height is more in scale with modern French track (and more suitable for older stock profiles) but the new Code 75 Bi-Block seems also to be very popular as soon as it came out, so things may be changing. Many secondary and freight-only French lines have very narrow wooden sleepers, often appearing to be on the verge of rotting, so the Code 83 actually does not look out of place for these. For main line use however, I agree with you that Code 75 is visually more correct. When I go for more track at either of my "local" model shops in Bordeaux, they both have to order Code 75, but always have Code 83 and 009 in stock!! Both say they are more popular and why don't I use it!

 

 

PS - one of them also stocks Roco track but from the layer of dust on most of it, it does not seem to move very fast. HO track, at least in France, seems to be one of the few British export modelling success stories (along with Humbrol paints, Airfix kits and 16mm/ft Roundhouse steam locos, from Doncaster).

[Pacific231G]

True, but the rail height is more in scale with modern French track (and more suitable for older stock profiles) but the new Code 75 Bi-Block seems also to be very popular as soon as it came out, so things may be changing. Many secondary and freight-only French lines have very narrow wooden sleepers, often appearing to be on the verge of rotting, so the Code 83 actually does not look out of place for these. For main line use however, I agree with you that Code 75 is visually more correct. When I go for more track at either of my "local" model shops in Bordeaux, they both have to order Code 75, but always have Code 83 and 009 in stock!! Both say they are more popular and why don't I use it!

Hi Mike

Do they also have Peco code 100 in stock?

There have been several articles in Loco-Revue about turning Peco 75 into "hyper realistic"  but the number of steps were so many that you might almost as well have hand laid the rail on wooden sleepers.

 

I wonder if it's the rotting of sleepers that makes them look narrower . I'd always thought that American ties were much narrower than British/European ones but the standard width seems to be 9" (US) against 10" (250mm) for standard British and European wooden sleepers. 

 

 

This is about the lightest S.G. secondary track I know, it's on the former VFL line from Sabres to Labouheyre, just beyond the short section still used for a museum shuttle train, and though it was laid directly on the ground the sleeper spacings are normal (this is a track joint so the sleepers are closer).Some of the sleepers do look a bit narrow but I think that's rounding and they generally appear to be of fairly standard dimensions- at least that's how they started out!! The metal bands to stop the sleeper from splitting seem to be characteristically French.

 

 

This track is on the VFL line to Tartas which is still open for freight and, though heavier rail has been installed, the sleepering looks much the same even though the track on these lines was laid directly on the graded sandy ground without stone ballast (I think they had added some gravel on this line) . It does look rather like American shortline track but I think the sleeper spacing is still at around 70-75 cms.

I'll maybe get hold of a length of Peco 83 and see how it looks.  

[Joseph_Pestell]

That's interesting Mike.

In H0, Peco's code 75 seems to match modern French main line sleeper sizes and spacing (60cm) pretty well though it's rather oversleepered for most older track but isn't the 83 Line built to NMRA specs. very much oversleepered for any European prototype with American ties also being narrower than European sleepers?  I know that some French modellers use SMP for double champignon (bullhead) track but to me the sleepers do look wrong in H0. It's a shame because I have some SMP point kits I'd quite like to use for a Ouest/Etat layout but am rather balking at modifying all the timbering.

 

The SMP sleepers do need a lot of cutting down which would be very time consuming on a big layout. But it does give a very good result.

[Mike Storey]

Hi Mike

Do they also have Peco code 100 in stock?

There have been several articles in Loco-Revue about turning Peco 75 into "hyper realistic"  but the number of steps were so many that you might almost as well have hand laid the rail on wooden sleepers.

 

I wonder if it's the rotting of sleepers that makes them look narrower . I'd always thought that American ties were much narrower than British/European ones but the standard width seems to be 9" (US) against 10" (250mm) for standard British and European wooden sleepers. 

 

Marquèze original track 6jun2014 OK (SM).jpg

 

This is about the lightest S.G. secondary track I know, it's on the former VFL line from Sabres to Labouheyre, just beyond the short section still used for a museum shuttle train, and though it was laid directly on the ground the sleeper spacings are normal (this is a track joint so the sleepers are closer).Some of the sleepers do look a bit narrow but I think that's rounding and they generally appear to be of fairly standard dimensions- at least that's how they started out!! The metal bands to stop the sleeper from splitting seem to be characteristically French.

 

lesgor main line from Tartas iphone 6jun2014 1535.jpg

 

This track is on the VFL line to Tartas which is still open for freight and, though heavier rail has been installed, the sleepering looks much the same even though the track on these lines was laid directly on the graded sandy ground without stone ballast (I think they had added some gravel on this line) . It does look rather like American shortline track but I think the sleeper spacing is still at around 70-75 cms.

I'll maybe get hold of a length of Peco 83 and see how it looks.  

 

I think one of them often has Code 100 in stock, but usually just odd bits of it, like some Y points but no LH or RH for example. The big box shifters in Paris seem to carry the full range though (according to their ads).

 

I am not recommending Code 83 for what you want to do, but just saying it appears to be easier to get hold of, and that may just be a temporary thing. If you are prepared to wait, you can easily order anything from the Peco range from their official retailers here - even though the cost is higher than direct from the UK, it works out at about the same when buying in bulk because the postage for a box of flexi-track is pretty steep now.