Jump to content
 

Combining C&L OO code 75 flexitrack with PECO 100 points


londonbus

Recommended Posts

Dear combined knoweldge of the RMWeb. I have a large quantity of PECO Code 100 flexible track bought several years ago, points too.

 

Currently i'm laying track for a medium sized layout - 6m x 2.5m. Track laying in the scenic section (station) has started with me cutting the webbing from PECO 100 felxible track. It takes forever and with the length of the sleepers also out of scale it's a bit of a compromise (although looks much better than the original track out of the box).

 

Just browsing C&L website and noticed they are at the Uckfield show, which as i'm in the UK for a few days may be able to attend and pick some up.

 

Any experience or thoughts on combining Code 100 points and joining to Code 75 C&L flexible trackwork? It will be ballasted and weathered. Apparently buying just the sleepers and putting the PECO rail in won't work.

 

I am obviously quite relaxed about compromises and actually don't have a big issue with the code 100 look. But I would like to improve the overall look if possible, but not if the code 100 & 75 together will be noticably different. I just don't know.

 

Any thoughts, as always greatfully recieved.

 

Tremayne

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tremayne

 

Peco do a code 100 to code 75 fishplates, whilst they are for flatbottom rail many use Peco code 75 rail joiners to join code 75 bullhead rail.

 

Secondly you will have to pack underneath the C&L track with card to bring it to the same height as Peco as the sleepers are different thicknesses

 

C&L also sell Exactoscale Fastrack bases (you have to thread the rail on the sleepers) which has sleepers much the same thickness as Peco's. Its very nice track

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, I spoke to C&L and they were very helpful, although my solution will probably be to stick with cutting out the webbing on the Peco 100. Not the ideal solution but they said they didn't currently produce sleepers that would just replace the Peco ones. Of course there would also be the problem of the C&L sleepers being scale length and the peco points being shorter on the ppoints so if I combined points and C&L track it would probably look odd? I am not contemplating buying new points. So my conclusion is to make the best job of what i've got.

 

Judging on what C&L said there has been a lot of interest in people looking to improve Code 100 track, but not enough to make it economically viable. Lots of other things to be getting on with.

post-9148-0-67342600-1444849607.jpg

post-9148-0-57058900-1444849617.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you paint the rails of your Code 100 (I spray mine before use; then spray the sleepers at straight down (so as not to spray over the colour on the rail sides) - much quicker!) leaving just the rail head clean and shiny (following cleaning), you'll find that the visual difference between Code 100 and Code 75 is a lot less.

 

Peco also now do a short length of Code 100 to Code 75 conversion track as an alternative to the conversion fishplates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thought had occurred to me, but many years ago I succumbed to my collectomaniac tendencies before Bachmann started bringing out DMUs and collected about 15 Lima 117 sets with a hairbrained scheme to convert into 115s. I still want to do this just for fun, it doesn't really matter if I make a dogs dinner of it, i'll put it down to experience and i'll sure it'll improve my modelling skills. At the time the options were to change all the wheelsets or to go code 100. So I went 100.

 

Living in Germany and being busy with work projects what spare time I get I want to get on and build. I have the same philosophy as LNER4479 on this one, whilst not perfect, with a bit of effort Code 100 can be improved a lot (the pic is the first track down) I am sure just as I finish sticking down the track in the scenic section somebody will come out with accurate replacement sleepers. But I am still young and all my own teeth, so there will be version IV and probably V and one fine day I shall be building my own track (and wishing i'd stuck with PECO probably).

 

Thanks for all the input. I find it really helpful in figuring out what I am going to do.

post-9148-0-26918400-1444897010.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

... collected about 15 Lima 117 sets with a hairbrained scheme to convert into 115s. I still want to do this just for fun, it doesn't really matter if I make a dogs dinner of it, i'll put it down to experience and i'll sure it'll improve my modelling skills. At the time the options were to change all the wheelsets or to go code 100. .

 Take a sample Lima bogie with you and try it on the C&L code 75. I suspect the Lima wheels will run along the chairs.

 

If you know you are staying 'forever' with RTR track then I would suggest making the move to code 75 now, and biting the bullet on wheelset changes as required.

 

If on the other hand you think it likely that you will someday be sinking all your own teeth into handbuilt track, then stay as you are; because that will probably be P4. (If you are going to build track, then the effort is much the same to build compromised or dead right.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If on the other hand you think it likely that you will someday be sinking all your own teeth into handbuilt track, then stay as you are; because that will probably be P4. (If you are going to build track, then the effort is much the same to build compromised or dead right.)

Going well off topic, this is why I really can't see the point of EM. To be a bit provocative... All that effort and it's still wrong. With P4 it's right, and with OO it's easy and you can play with rtr stuff out of the box, but EM is worst of both worlds...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going well off topic, this is why I really can't see the point of EM. To be a bit provocative... All that effort and it's still wrong. With P4 it's right, and with OO it's easy and you can play with rtr stuff out of the box, but EM is worst of both worlds...

 

 

But is it ? it is just over 1/2 a mm too narrow and the flangeways are 1/3 of a mm too wide, but for those with a lot of either modern RTR or kit built stock its just pulling the wheels out a bit (no cost) also the slighter coarser standards of EM verses P4 some find much easier to build and run stock. 

 

In the end much better looking than 00 finescale and easier to work with than P4.  Now go to Pendon and say that !! especially at some of their stock

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried what the OP is asking, and what he's done, cutting Peco sleepers and making the gaps wider. It was tedious and didn't look right, so I opted for C&L and handbuilt

points using Templot for the planning.

 

Lima wheels won't run on C&L plain track, the flanges will run on the chairs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried what the OP is asking, and what he's done, cutting Peco sleepers and making the gaps wider. It was tedious and didn't look right, so I opted for C&L and handbuilt

points using Templot for the planning.

 

Lima wheels won't run on C&L plain track, the flanges will run on the chairs.

 

Thanks for getting back to the original qu. Which confirms my suspicions.
Link to post
Share on other sites

On Emsworth, there are pictures on here somewhere, I have used C and L bullhead track in conjunction with Peco code 75 points. The look of the plain track with the bolted chairs etc is excellent and while the points detract a little from that I can live with it. Now, when I look at my older layout, I find the sleeper spacing on the code 75 plain track eye catching for all the wrong reasons.

The combination of crude points and better track works for me, with very little engineering, but I think railway modelling is like vegetarianism or speeding - we all have our own levels of compromise!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...