hayfield Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 44 minutes ago, Pacific231G said: I'd noticed that with the 83 line templates but assumed it was just to get the templates out at the same time as the product. It's interesting that people are complaining about Peco's full size templates when, AFAIK, they're the only manufacturer to supply them at all. The only point of an engineering drawing would be to enable you to build points wih the same geometry yourself and that's obviously not what Peco want you to do. The question of the actual radius is interesting because just about every turnout quoted as three foot radius, that I've been able to get hold of, including SMP, has a very similar if not identical curve to Peco's medium radius. I assume that it's the notional radius of a constant curve from the end of the switch to the crossing but, as the actual curve is more of a transition, then the minmum radius would be less. I also notice that Bebbspoke's post on this is his first on RMWEB despite having joined almost a year ago. We may choose to draw a conclusion from that. Having a turnout with a set radii harks back to the 60's with the GEM and Formway ranges It is usual now for track builders to refer to both the switch size and crossing angle, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Keith Addenbrooke Posted January 21, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 21, 2021 4 hours ago, Pacific231G said: I'd noticed that with the 83 line templates but assumed it was just to get the templates out at the same time as the product. I did run into a small challenge printing off a Code 83 #8 template on the home printer : at 321.3mm it’s longer than a piece of A4 paper. Questionmarks over Peco’s stated radii for their Code 100 / Code 75 Streamline points are well versed - you also have to be careful with the Peco website when looking at the Code 83 product line: it appears that a #8 turnout is marketed as “8th radius” (etc). This is particularly confusing for the #4 Wye, which is promoted as “4th radius” but I think actually matches the #8 turnouts (using American geometry I would expect this). If I’ve understood it right, the Peco #7 curved turnout uses curves of 19.5 degrees and 9.5 degrees - so gives a 10 degree relative angle of divergence on exit. (I’m not an expert, please correct me I’ve got this wrong. Thanks, Keith). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, hayfield said: Having a turnout with a set radii harks back to the 60's with the GEM and Formway ranges It is usual now for track builders to refer to both the switch size and crossing angle, Well. SMP turnouts and other pointwork are still being described by Marcway in terms of radii rather than crossing angles and that's not RTP. It's a practice that seems to go back to the very start of the hobby and may well have resulted from the standard ways of laying out points. For handbuilt trackwork, as described by modellers such as Peter Denny (in his Buckingham Branch Lines part one there's a detailed description of this) points were set out by drawing out the straight (or less curved) and the curved track to the desired radius usually with some transition. The crossing angle would simply follow from that and doesn't even seem to have been measured let alone specified. What modellers building their own track don't appear to have been doing was combining standardised crossing and switch panels. What I dont know is whether early PW practice did the same with everything being tailored to fit on site and, if so, when the use of standard switches and crossings was adopted instead. For narrow gauge prefabricated track, points were also specified with radii rather than crossing angle and in their 1905 English language catalogue, Decauville offered, for 2ft gauge locomotive operated lines, "Crossings, to right or left with Inside Movable Switches, 66, 99, or 165 ft radius". No mention anywhere of crossing angle so the use of radii to define the size of turnouts wasn't confined to railway modellers. In the 1970s I built a North American H0 layout but that was the first time I ever encountered frog numbers and I'd never heard or read about any modellers using crossing angles for British prototypes, Even though I was building some of my own #6 turnouts using NMRA gauges I think I assumed that the use of crossing angles rather than radii simply reflected the different geometry of American pointwork. It certainly looked different. The Peco catalogue's use of sixth, seventh or eighth radius to describe their 83 line N. American #6, #7 or #8 turnouts looks like a confusion of terms in their marketing department though their US distibutors don't make that mistake. It's not the first time something like this has happned; in Streamline and bullhead they also offer "catch turnouts" and these and all the other turnouts and slips can all be operated by "turnout motors" Edited January 22, 2021 by Pacific231G 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bebbspoke Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 The simple point (no pun intended) I'm trying to make is that Peco are claiming the theoretically IMPOSSIBLE: - e.g Code 100 large radius turnout (SL88/89) To attain a frog angle of 12 degrees to an effective radius of 60" (as claimed) would require a chord length of 12.475"... such is IMPOSSIBLE with a component only 10.125" long. "For every complex problem there is an answer which is simple.... and wrong" Fully agree with that statement... & Peco are guilty of using the simple answer! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Harlequin Posted January 22, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 22, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bebbspoke said: The simple point (no pun intended) I'm trying to make is that Peco are claiming the theoretically IMPOSSIBLE: - e.g Code 100 large radius turnout (SL88/89) To attain a frog angle of 12 degrees to an effective radius of 60" (as claimed) would require a chord length of 12.475"... such is IMPOSSIBLE with a component only 10.125" long. "For every complex problem there is an answer which is simple.... and wrong" Fully agree with that statement... & Peco are guilty of using the simple answer! Peco do NOT make any claims about the frog angles of Streamline turnouts. The 12° refers to the final angle of divergence of the rails from the turnout. Their geometry allows different frog angles to be used to achieve that divergence. Edited January 22, 2021 by Harlequin 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheatley Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 On 21/01/2021 at 00:48, Bebbspoke said: surely all this ... would be sorted if Peco had the sense & courtesy to publish PROPER engineering drawings instead of photographs with pathetic rulers? Why ? Unless you're planning to tool up your own using their drawings, or you are Martin trying to fit them into a prototypical track planning tool, who else needs that degree of accuracy ? Planning - Cut them out, stick them on a bit of wallpaper, see if it fits (I'm glad I'm not the only one who still relies on this, thanks Clive) Laying - stick them together, line up by eye. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bebbspoke Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 I have NO intention of playing with toy trains or cutting out bits of paper ... I am an engineer. I am not a "model railway operator" - I do NOT play with toy trains... I am an engineer who is tasked with relocating parts of a vast loft layout into a garage layout such that the (now) wheel-chair bound owner may continue his lifetime hobby. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 (edited) On 22/01/2021 at 06:53, Bebbspoke said: The simple point (no pun intended) I'm trying to make is that Peco are claiming the theoretically IMPOSSIBLE: - e.g Code 100 large radius turnout (SL88/89) To attain a frog angle of 12 degrees to an effective radius of 60" (as claimed) would require a chord length of 12.475"... such is IMPOSSIBLE with a component only 10.125" long. "For every complex problem there is an answer which is simple.... and wrong" Fully agree with that statement... & Peco are guilty of using the simple answer! I don't think Peco's answer is simple but it was ingenious. Simple would be to produce turnouts of different lengths with different crossings, which is what you have with their 83 line products made to NMRA standards and quoted by frog number but, to enable more complex poinwork, you'd need slips and diamond crossings as well for each crossing angle. In fact, for their 83 line, Peco only produce a 90 degree crossing and a #6 slip. More complex pointwork is far less common in American railroading (though not unknown) On 22/01/2021 at 08:06, Harlequin said: Peco do NOT make any claims about the frog angles of Streamline turnouts. The 12° refers to the final angle of divergence of the rails from the turnout. Their geometry allows different frog angles to be used to achieve that divergence. Absolutely true Phil, though even so I'm not sure that the radius through Peco's long radius points really is five foot. What Peco have done (as you know but others clearly don't) is to use the same straight crossing (frog) for their small and medium radius points so that the crossing angle is the same as the divergence angle at the heel end of the turnout.* For their large radius points Peco simply used a shallower angle curved crossing (I think it's about 10 degrees) with the same final 12 degree divergence angle achieved by the curve continuing beyond the crossing to the end. There is a catch in that. Though both types of crossing are prototypical, a curved crossing would be used with a junction point but would never be used for a crossover or to create a parallel track as that would involve an unseparated S curve. I don't disagree with Peco's decision, many years ago, to settle on a standard divergence angle; their ingenious approach makes it possible to create most track formations without any surgery. It is a shame that they don't also produce a turnout for crossovers etc. with a shallower straight crossing and a smaller divergence angle. Using two large radius points to form a crossover loses some of the advantages of the gentler radius in terms of buffer locking with longer vehicles. * The medium radius turnout is the most "natural" for that crossing angle and all the nominally three foot radius points I have example of have a very similar geometry. Shortening a turnout by effectively delaying the start of the curve from the same crossing and accepting a sharper curve as Peco have done with their small radius points is not unprototypical. You can't do the opposite to get a much larger radius turnout with the same crossing angle but Peco's turnouts do seem to include a degree of easement (transition) that I believe you only find on the prototype on higher speed turnouts with far smaller crossing angles. Edited January 27, 2021 by Pacific231G typos and punctuation 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Harlequin Posted January 22, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 22, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Bebbspoke said: I have NO intention of playing with toy trains or cutting out bits of paper ... I am an engineer. I am not a "model railway operator" - I do NOT play with toy trains... I am an engineer who is tasked with relocating parts of a vast loft layout into a garage layout such that the (now) wheel-chair bound owner may continue his lifetime hobby. Your obvious anger with the Peco product is misplaced and misdirected. The Streamline parts can be used systematically when you understand the geometry and there are many design tools that can help with that. You'd be better off complaining to Peco than us if you find the product too "toy-like". Edited January 22, 2021 by Harlequin 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Bebbspoke said: I have NO intention of playing with toy trains or cutting out bits of paper ... I am an engineer. I am not a "model railway operator" - I do NOT play with toy trains... I am an engineer who is tasked with relocating parts of a vast loft layout into a garage layout such that the (now) wheel-chair bound owner may continue his lifetime hobby. Many of us are also engineers. (My own degree was in engineering following a Marine Engineering OND though my career took a different path )and very many people here are professional engineers in a wide variety of disciplines including professional railway engineering. Very few of us "play with toy trains". Most of us are trying to recreate aspects and create impressions of the full size railway as it is or was. That inevitably involves compromises and a lot of our discussions are around thes best ways of managing or even embracing those comppromises. As to "cutting out bits of paper" that does not make what we do chilish. Those, for example, using Templot to design more realistic trackwork are most certainly not "playing with toy trains" but the output appears on paper which would normally be cut out and laid on the baseboard (or a sub baseboard) over which to actually build the track. The printable pdf templates that Peco usefully provides enable a proposed track arrangement to be laid out in full size to see if it works both aesthetically and practically before actually buying anything. The task you have undertaken is likely to be as much an artistic as an engineering challenge and it's that combination of the artistic and the practical that makes this hobby a lifetime one for many of us. (By the way most people I know who use wheelchairs to enhance their mobility object strongly to terms like "wheel-chair bound") Edited January 22, 2021 by Pacific231G 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted January 22, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 22, 2021 1 hour ago, Bebbspoke said: I have NO intention of playing with toy trains or cutting out bits of paper ... I am an engineer. I am not a "model railway operator" - I do NOT play with toy trains... I am an engineer who is tasked with relocating parts of a vast loft layout into a garage layout such that the (now) wheel-chair bound owner may continue his lifetime hobby. Hi, There are several software packages for CAD-like layout planning, which have Peco turnout footprints pre-set: XTrackCad -- free - http://xtrkcad-fork.sourceforge.net/Wikka/HomePage 3rd PlanIt - http://trackplanning.com Also AnyRail, which is easier to use: http://anyrail.com Please note that Templot is NOT suitable for what you want to do. Martin. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted January 22, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 22, 2021 1 hour ago, Bebbspoke said: I have NO intention of playing with toy trains or cutting out bits of paper ... I am an engineer. I am not a "model railway operator" - I do NOT play with toy trains... I am an engineer who is tasked with relocating parts of a vast loft layout into a garage layout such that the (now) wheel-chair bound owner may continue his lifetime hobby. Your manners are appalling; your self-importance is risible; your assumptions about those trying to help you are insulting. Nevertheless you've received much more courteous treatment than your posting style deserves. Perhaps you'd like to calm down and start again? 1 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterfgf Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 I tried most of them and found that Anyrail was the best and easy to use. The worst thing about it was that it forced me to recognise that I was never going to get the main line through the Peak District into my attic. It did enable be to build baseboards accurately to size and decide where to put turnouts etc. It could do with some embellishments, like easy formatting of text and colours, but it did all I wanted. Templot is great and will enable you to design professional looking, almost prototypical trackwork. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingEdwardII Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 37 minutes ago, martin_wynne said: There are several software packages for CAD-like layout planning, which have Peco turnout footprints pre-set Indeed - and what matters is not whether Peco produce accurate drawings of their turnouts, but that these software packages have accurate representations of the turnouts built-in, to enable accurate planning of any particular layout arrangement. And they do - and not only Peco, if you prefer products from other manufacturers. I plan out my layout with these tools (XTrackCad is my particular poison...) and get it all carefully laid out in cyberspace before transferring the plan to the baseboards. I use 1:1 printouts of the plan pinned accurately to the baseboards to achieve this, although you could take the alternative approach of reading out the positions of each item of track and marking them on the baseboards. Either way you get accuracy in laying out the track, knowing that it is all going to work. Yours, Mike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium rab Posted January 22, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 22, 2021 (edited) On 21/01/2021 at 00:48, Bebbspoke said: Post deleted Edited January 22, 2021 by rab Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium rab Posted January 22, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 22, 2021 On 21/01/2021 at 00:48, Bebbspoke said: yeah - surely all this PECO frog angle & radius of curve would be sorted if Peco had the sense & courtesy to publish PROPER engineering drawings instead of photographs with pathetic rulers? I note in a later post you mention you are an engineer. I worked in engineering, in a drawing office, and I would have thought you would be aware that companies are not in the habit of publishing engineering drawings to all and sundry. In fact they usually do their best to ensure their distribution is restricted as much as possible 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cctransuk Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, KingEdwardII said: I use 1:1 printouts of the plan pinned accurately to the baseboards to achieve this This is what I intend to do. Do you glue the printouts to the (cork?) sub-base, or do you transfer the information to the trackbed? John Isherwood. Edited January 22, 2021 by cctransuk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Lamb Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 7 hours ago, Bebbspoke said: I have NO intention of playing with toy trains or cutting out bits of paper ... I am an engineer. I am not a "model railway operator" - I do NOT play with toy trains... I am an engineer who is tasked with relocating parts of a vast loft layout into a garage layout such that the (now) wheel-chair bound owner may continue his lifetime hobby. An engineer in my book is a person who can make an item for £1 that any idiot could make for £5 and then persuade tens of thousands of people to buy it. On that basis Peco are pretty good and you come across as........ Bernard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheatley Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 (edited) 8 hours ago, Bebbspoke said: I have NO intention of playing with toy trains or cutting out bits of paper ... I am an engineer. I am not a "model railway operator" - I do NOT play with toy trains... I am an engineer who is tasked with relocating parts of a vast loft layout into a garage layout such that the (now) wheel-chair bound owner may continue his lifetime hobby. You still don't need an engineering drawing for that. Edited January 22, 2021 by Wheatley 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingEdwardII Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 1 hour ago, cctransuk said: Do you glue the printouts to the (cork?) sub-base... John, I fix the printouts to the baseboard directly and do a "first fix" of the track directly on that - making all the holes for point motors, droppers, etc and getting the alignments and track cutting done. Then lay and pin the track and fit the point motors. I then run trains, switch turnouts, etc, to check that all is good. Later I go back, lift the track in sections and put in the underlay (I use 2mm x 50mm width closed-cell foam tape), then relay it all ready for ballasting. Mike 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 15 hours ago, Bebbspoke said: I have NO intention of playing with toy trains or cutting out bits of paper ... I am an engineer. I am not a "model railway operator" - I do NOT play with toy trains... I am an engineer who is tasked with relocating parts of a vast loft layout into a garage layout such that the (now) wheel-chair bound owner may continue his lifetime hobby. It sounds like you might have the wrong skill set. The layout needs a fitter to adapt and assemble the previously engineered parts. If you don't play with trains then you won't have the skill set to understand what is required to operate the trains in a satisfying manner. The Code 100 Peco streamline points have been made for something like 60 years, they were among the first DEAD frog code 100 points on the market and have changed and evolved over the years such that one of vintage point will not replace another without modifying one or the other. Usually by shortening the newer point. It is important to remember the drawings are third party drawings of one or a small number of finished products not production drawings for manufacture. They can vary by plus or minus 3mm in my experience. It doesn't bother me, I have a set of needle files and I just tweak and file the track to make the points fit. You need to work out how the trains will be played with, work out the electrical feeds and isolators on paper and assemble the track making sure you don't make any mistakes because removing one point among a lot of other points is not easy and requires considerable experience in bodgery to achieve. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted January 23, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 23, 2021 9 hours ago, rab said: I note in a later post you mention you are an engineer. I worked in engineering, in a drawing office, and I would have thought you would be aware that companies are not in the habit of publishing engineering drawings to all and sundry. In fact they usually do their best to ensure their distribution is restricted as much as possible Strange, but that isn't entirely true of steam locomotive manufacturers in the UK. When railway companies had a contractor build a batch of locomotives, they generally came with a full set of plans. It was quite common for the railway company, once they were not snowed under with work, build some more examples themselves. The LMS had a good example, in that the original 50 Royal Scots were built by North British. Later they built another 20 at Derby. They certainly didn't 'reverse engineer' the plans, they built them to the supplied plans from North British. On occasion, a railway company would go to another contractor, to get more examples built, using the same plans, sometimes with alterations/improvements, in light of operating experience. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted January 23, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 23, 2021 17 hours ago, Bebbspoke said: I have NO intention of playing with toy trains or cutting out bits of paper ... I am an engineer. I am not a "model railway operator" - I do NOT play with toy trains... I am an engineer who is tasked with relocating parts of a vast loft layout into a garage layout such that the (now) wheel-chair bound owner may continue his lifetime hobby. Perhaps you're the wrong person to under go this task? I'm making the assumption that the layout worked to the owners satisfaction, in its original location? If not, then perhaps a new layout to your standards, is the only way forward, you just got to get the owner to agree to the obviously higher quote. Not sure that I'd get someone who is clearly not a modeller, operator or even interested in the end result, to do this work. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philou Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 Cor ........ I just came across the tail-end of this thread. In my working life, I too was an engineer, but in highway design. We had to know about transitions and super-elevation (cant) and maximum/minimum gradients and curves, oh and the difference between 'hogging' and 'sagging'. That has never stopped me 'modelling' within the limitations of what we have in RTR and the inevitable compromises of gauge (00) and compression. There is another thread on RMWeb where someone has taken a lot of time to establish the radii of Peco points and IIRC the large radius point is only slightly bigger than 3' and not 5'. It may well be that overall, the medium point is the best of the bunch in terms of looks/usability. I wonder if Bebbspoke has been 'charged' with redoing this layout and is applying his engineering nous in a situation where too much knowledge is not necessary, and is finding it frustrating. Cool man, just chill out. I'm sure the RMWeb collective would only be too happy to give hints and help - but you've got to ask nicely ..... Cheers, Philip *Reduced mobility would be a better phrase, no? 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philou Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 Just in case Bebbspoke does come back, here are a couple of photos showing how I approached the laying out of point work (Peco ones) to check that it would work, if it helps: Paper templates (downloaded from the Peco website), pinned directly to the base and marked out: The trackwork marked with position of point motors ready to cut with a jigsaw: Holes cut and underlay laid in place, pointwork relaid as final check and the the underlay cut through for the motors: Cheers, Philip 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now