Peco code 75 or 100 for modern DCC layout ?

[rushdenx1]

I am about to start building a new DCC OO gauge layout which will be a modern 'Depot' with a number of sidings and a passing loop. I will be running modern Bachmann and Hornby 'sound' fitted locos. My last DCC layout suffered a few 'shorting' issues on insulfrog points, so this time I want to get the track right and ensure smooth running 100% of the time. I am assuming therefore that using peco track and 'electrofrog' points is the way to go. However I notice that there are two types, code 75 and code 100. Can someone explain what the difference is between the two ? What is more suitable for my proposed layout and rolling stock ? Thanks Kevin.

[Brian]

Hi

Both are suitable

The code number is the height of the rail in thousandths of an inch. So, Code 100 rail is 0.1" inches tall while Code 75 rail is 0.075" tall from rail bottom to its top.

 

Code 75 rail being smaller looks more realistic. But equally if code 100 rail is painted a rusty rail colour, I find it still looks fairly reasonable.

 

Code 100 track is normally used where any older rolling stock (Approx anything prior 1995ish) is required to run. But as you're starting from scratch and using only modern locos and rolling stock, then code 75 will be fine.

 

I would advise, whether using code 75 or 100 track, to make all the points so called 'DCC Friendly' by removing the factory fitted linking wires from under the two insulations fitted into the two closure rails of Peco points and then wire link the stock rail to its adjacent closure rail on both sides of the point on the switch blade side of the insulation. Then install point motor operated frog switching. Making the points Friendly (a term I really don't like!) removes the reliance on the closed switch rail making good electrical contact with the stock rail and removes any possibility of the insides of any metal wheels touching the inside of the open switch rail, which without the conversion is at opposite polarity to the stock rail. See my web site for the problem and fix. Link to my DCC page

 

As you're using DCC, I would always install two Insulated Rail Joiners (insulated fishplates) to the ends of all live frog points on their Vee rail ends, then install new rail feeds beyond the IRJs as required.

[Donw]

Brian has said it all. I would follow his advice.

Donw

[Suzie]

While there are only two types available from most model shops, Peco make the 83-line range of track as well in code 83:-

 

http://www.thesignalbox.co.uk/index_new.php?pg=3&p_cat_id=94

 

Since you are bulding a depot you might prefer the look of the metal check rails used on the 83-line track to the plastic ones used on the code 75 and code 100. The 83-line is to full NMRA spec and much more consistent than the cade 75 and code 100.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest 30-something]

Brian has said it all. I would follow his advice.

Donw

 

I second that.

 

Im using code 75 and electrofrog points and find it very easy to work with

 

Cheers

 

Joe

[Pete the Elaner]

Making the points Friendly (a term I really don't like!)

 

I also completely agree with your entier post...including not liking this term.

Your suggested method is just good wiring & should be used for DC too.

The difference here between DC & DCC is that DC will stall while the short exists (which if the loco is moving quickly may be very brief). DCC will complain loudly & the whole layout will shut down for a while

 

To answer the original question: Code 75 should look better, but needs a more stable track bed. When laid on softer woods, track tends to move a little over time which is bad around board joints. Code 100 can be more tolerant here. Weathering your track well will always improve its appearance.

Some older stock (eg. Lima) will not run properly on Code 75 because the flanges are too deep & wide so therefore need re-wheeling. If all your stock is fairly new, you should not have this problem.

[Pete Harvey]

Peters Street and Dudley Road and Lindridge Road all use code 100 Peco with insilfrog points with no problems and reliable running there is no technical reason why you have to use Electrofrog points with DCC over Insilfrog points.

Code 100 does off a greater trouble free running of any stock from any manufacturer and I find more reliable in general it can be made to look just as good as code 75 with careful ballasting.

 

©Chris Nevard 2009

 

Pete

[StaffsOatcake]

My layout is using Code 75 track.

 

but if you're really adventurous then you could try making your own track and points

[Pete the Elaner]

There is no technical reason why you have to use Electrofrog points with DCC over Insilfrog points.

 

Code 100 can be made to look just as good as code 75 with careful ballasting.

 

 

You don't seem to be very open-minded with either of those points & I disagree with both.

 

Code 100 can be made to look resaonably good with careful ballasting, but as good as Code 75? I don't think so. The differences are more noticeable around pointwork.

 

Isolating rail joiners are not recommended with Insulfrog although you can use them. When stock passes over the frog, the wheel CAN short out the 2 rails. Wheel profile depends on manufacturer & age. If the point has not been fitted with isolating rail joiners, then the rails will be of opposite polarity & your DCC 'troller will throw a wobbily.

With Electrofrog they are connected anyway, so you will have to take this into account when wiring the point in the first place.

[Suzie]

Peters Street and Dudley Road and Lindridge Road all use code 100 Peco with Insulfrog points with no problems and reliable running there is no technical reason why you have to use Electrofrog points with DCC over Insulfrog points.

Code 100 does off a greater trouble free running of any stock from any manufacturer and I find more reliable in general it can be made to look just as good as code 75 with careful ballasting.

 

Pete

It depends on what you are trying to do. There are plenty of technical reasons not to use dead frog points - you are just lucky enough that you don't happen to have any of them! Just because bodging it works OK for you does not make it good practice.

 

 

There is some rather conflicting advice here - if you really want trouble free running and simple installation go live frog (Electrofrog). The wiring is exactly the same using either type of point the only difference is that you can cut corners with dead frogs and leave out the insulated joiners and hope for the best. If you really want to run everything from most (not all) manufacturers you will of course need code 100 or larger rail to cope with the oversized flanges.

 

1. Wide tyres on wheels will bridge the frog rails on a dead frog point and cause a short. Unflanged drivers will do the same on a curved dead frog point. If you have either of these situations you will need to wire your dead frog points as live frog with insulated joiners to work around the problem.

 

2. Locos with a rigid chassis or bogie and only four wheel pickup sooner or later will stall when the only wheel picking up current on one side is on the dead frog. This is likely to be a bigger problem when using shunting locos at low speed.

 

3. The height of the rail only makes a difference to running if you have huge flanges - if the flanges are too big they will run along the chairs lifting the wheel off of the rail. I have only seen this with some Lima in recent times and ancient 1960s Triang items - anything other than Lima bought in the last twenty years should be OK on code 75.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pete the Elaner]

 

3. The height of the rail only makes a difference to running if you have huge flanges - if the flanges are too big they will run along the chairs lifting the wheel off of the rail. I have only seen this with some Lima in recent times and ancient 1960s Triang items - anything other than Lima bought in the last twenty years should be OK on code 75.

 

 

It also has finer tolerances between running & check rails which causes some older Hornby stuff to jump, but this can be eliminated by simply adjusting the back-to-backs.

[Ravenser]

I would recommend code 75 here.

 

Electrofrog points have considerable benefits if you are running slowly, or have short wheelbase locos , and if you have a complex of piontwork it is possible in certain circumstances that a loco or more likely a DMU will find itself on two dead frogs . So I think the greater wiring brings real benefits

 

As far as code 100 v code 75 is concerned, I can see no obvious reason for going with the overscale code 100. Up to about 1990, Lima wheels were too deep for code 75. After 1990 , most if not all Lima stock was okay on code 75. All Hornby, Bachmann, Dapol, Heljan, Mainline, Replica, and Vi-Trains stock from the last 25 years will be fine

 

Pete the Elaner

It also has finer tolerances between running & check rails which causes some older Hornby stuff to jump, but this can be eliminated by simply adjusting the back-to-backs.

 

I don't think this has been the case for about 20 years. I'm quite sure all Peco code 100 made for at least the last 10 years, and probably the last 15-20 years, has been to the same tolerences as the code 75 range . However it is true that the code-83 US range is made to the significantly tighter NMRA track standard, and you may find a few items of British stock that require slight easing of the wheels to run on code 83

 

Basically , I don't see why there is any reason now to compromise with the over scale code 100 range.

 

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... Secondly, I have also contributed to another layout with a completely different "design spec". A 25yd circumference, twin track roundy using Peco Code 100, 2 pairs of Insulfrog Peco points for crossovers between inner and outer circuits, and another 6 Insulfrog points ... After several months since completion, perfect reliability. ...

Italicisation in the quote is mine. Give it a year of regular DCC operation and look at the spark erosion in the railheads immediately behind the plastic crossing. Alternatively run it in complete darkness and see it looking like a third rail system.

[catflap]

Italicisation in the quote is mine. Give it a year of regular DCC operation and look at the spark erosion in the railheads immediately behind the plastic crossing. Alternatively run it in complete darkness and see it looking like a third rail system.

 

I have found that my Canadian Kato locos don't like the PECO code 100 set track points at all - although the more recent Hornby and Bachmann UK locos don't seem to have problems, although all of them drop into the gap at the frog. The DCC locos only seem to have problems with shorting on one point - I installed them as -is so I will be lifting them and isolating them! I would guess that if you are running modern stuff - made in the last few years - then you should probably go for the "finer scale" code 75 / 83 trackwork and get the best running and aesthetics. My only experience with code 75 is with PECO HOm points, which can be a bit fragile, I have broken the blades a couple of times. PECO did replace them but I have also been able to fix them in-situ with cyano. If I was making anything other than an OO 8 by 4 layout for my son I would go down the code 75 route and be more careful around the points!

[gwrman]

Hi, bought April's Railway Modeller today and was surprised to see Code 75 concrete Sleepered points to go with the Concrete Sleepered flexi track, Medium Radius L/H SL-E1096 & R/H SL-E1095.

Nigel.

[shedman]

Hi

Both are suitable

The code number is the height of the rail in thousandths of an inch. So, Code 100 rail is 0.1" inches tall while Code 75 rail is 0.075" tall from rail bottom to its top.

 

Code 75 rail being smaller looks more realistic. But equally if code 100 rail is painted a rusty rail colour, I find it still looks fairly reasonable.

 

Code 100 track is normally used where any older rolling stock (Approx anything prior 1995ish) is required to run. But as you're starting from scratch and using only modern locos and rolling stock, then code 75 will be fine.

 

I would advise, whether using code 75 or 100 track, to make all the points so called 'DCC Friendly' by removing the factory fitted linking wires from under the two insulations fitted into the two closure rails of Peco points and then wire link the stock rail to its adjacent closure rail on both sides of the point on the switch blade side of the insulation. Then install point motor operated frog switching. Making the points Friendly (a term I really don't like!) removes the reliance on the closed switch rail making good electrical contact with the stock rail and removes any possibility of the insides of any metal wheels touching the inside of the open switch rail, which without the conversion is at opposite polarity to the stock rail. See my web site for the problem and fix. Link to my DCC page

 

As you're using DCC, I would always install two Insulated Rail Joiners (insulated fishplates) to the ends of all live frog points on their Vee rail ends, then install new rail feeds beyond the IRJs as required.

 

Whilst I agree with all of this it is worth pointing out that Code 100 points are not quite so simple to make "DCC friedly". Unlike Code 75, they don't have a gap in the rails between the switch blade and the frog. This has to be made with a razor saw. It's not difficult to do, though. Next time I will use Code 75, both for looks and convenience, but it is slightly more fragile.

[Free At Last]

Whilst I agree with all of this it is worth pointing out that Code 100 points are not quite so simple to make "DCC friedly". Unlike Code 75, they don't have a gap in the rails between the switch blade and the frog. This has to be made with a razor saw. It's not difficult to do, though. Next time I will use Code 75, both for looks and convenience, but it is slightly more fragile.

 

This is a peco code 100 point and it does have the gap you mention.

 

 

[shedman]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. This must be a very recent change by Peco, as I last bought a point a couple of months ago and had to saw it. This is a very welcome change.

[Brian]

Whilst I agree with all of this it is worth pointing out that Code 100 points are not quite so simple to make "DCC friedly". Unlike Code 75, they don't have a gap in the rails between the switch blade and the frog. This has to be made with a razor saw. It's not difficult to do, though. Next time I will use Code 75, both for looks and convenience, but it is slightly more fragile.

Since last year (2009) new Peco code 100 electrofrog points are supplied with closure rail gaps in the same fashion as code 75 points are! I'm uncertain if all new code 100 points are being fitted with this? I haven't seen every version produced, but so far all new ones I have seen are so fitted.

 

You will need to check if the new point you're purchasing is older shop stock or they are newer ones!

[richard brown]

Since last year (2009) new Peco code 100 electrofrog points are supplied with closure rail gaps in the same fashion as code 75 points are! I'm uncertain if all new code 100 points are being fitted with this? I haven't seen every version produced, but so far all new ones I have seen are so fitted.

 

You will need to check if the new point you're purchasing is older shop stock or they are newer ones!

 

What I have found is the the new points have a bar code printed on the box the old ones don't.

 

 

 

 

Richard

 

 

[Garry Morris]

I would agree with all the above. One thing I will say is that if you use code 100 there will come a time when you wish you had used code 75 it sticks out like a sore thumb at exhibitions and you realise how much you yourself will have compromised. The second point slightly off topic here is That both code 75 and 100 are both HO scale for the Eurpean market, this means that to get realism you need to re space sleepers on plain line slightly, the points and crossings are ok in this respect because in reality the sleeper spacing a are tighter, The actual sleeper spacings are up for debate given that OO gauge is not the equivalent of 4mm a compromise that looks right can be achieved however. I have debated this with Peco but they have no intention of making British track even though they agree it looks better! Costs v profit!

[Ravenser]

I would agree with all the above. One thing I will say is that if you use code 100 there will come a time when you wish you had used code 75 it sticks out like a sore thumb at exhibitions and you realise how much you yourself will have compromised. The second point slightly off topic here is That both code 75 and 100 are both HO scale for the Eurpean market, this means that to get realism you need to re space sleepers on plain line slightly, the points and crossings are ok in this respect because in reality the sleeper spacing a are tighter, The actual sleeper spacings are up for debate given that OO gauge is not the equivalent of 4mm a compromise that looks right can be achieved however. I have debated this with Peco but they have no intention of making British track even though they agree it looks better! Costs v profit!

 

Emphasis added by me

 

Peco are releasing code 75 bullhead pointwork with 4mm sleepering any day now - I believe the thread on the subject is currently around 120 pages. Peco Code 75 bullhead flexitrack with 4mm has been in the shops for several months now.

 

The "correct" sleeper spacing for 4mm is up for debate because the real thing varied - in the 1890s pregrouping companies were laying running lines at 2'10" sleeper spacing , the interwar standard for mainlines was 2'6" (=10mm) , that dropped to 2'5" post war, and high speed mainlines today are laid with concrete sleepers spaced significantly tighter than that. Sidings have always had the sleepers spaced more widely than running lines.  You takes your piece of string and your measuring tape and you measures it - your answer may vary from mine. 

 

Old Peco Streamline is spaced at about 7.8mm centres , which is well below all of them, and about 65%-70% of the correct value for steam age sidings. The new code 75 BH is about right for postwar running lines, and Pecos code 75 concrete sleeper track has rather longer and wider sleepers than their code 100 concrete sleeper at wider centres, and is probably almost correct for a 125mph running line

 

Given what is now available in code 75 from Peco there are almost no arguments left for choosing code 100 unless you have a pile of Late Iron Age rolling stock that you absolutely have to run

[JST]

 

Given what is now available in code 75 from Peco there are almost no arguments left for choosing code 100 unless you have a pile of Late Iron Age rolling stock that you absolutely have to run

 

Yep.. that's me!  

[Pete the Elaner]

The "correct" sleeper spacing for 4mm is up for debate because the real thing varied - in the 1890s pregrouping companies were laying running lines at 2'10" sleeper spacing , the interwar standard for mainlines was 2'6" (=10mm) , that dropped to 2'5" post war, and high speed mainlines today are laid with concrete sleepers spaced significantly tighter than that. Sidings have always had the sleepers spaced more widely than running lines.  You takes your piece of string and your measuring tape and you measures it - your answer may vary from mine. 

 

Old Peco Streamline is spaced at about 7.8mm centres , which is well below all of them, and about 65%-70% of the correct value for steam age sidings. The new code 75 BH is about right for postwar running lines, and Pecos code 75 concrete sleeper track has rather longer and wider sleepers than their code 100 concrete sleeper at wider centres, and is probably almost correct for a 125mph running line

 

 

This is old thread which has been dug up.

On topic is on topic though & this is something I have been doing some work on recently, making up a demo board with different track & spacings just this morning.

 

I completely agree that sleeper spacings vary.

The dimensions are useful to a point, but as OO is 2.33mm too narrow anyway, using the correct dimensions elsewhere will look wrong.

I made a template for re-spacing concrete sleeper track & found that 4mm wide sleepers looked better when spaced 4.5mm apart, a center-to-centre of 8.5mm. I worked this out from a photo of a Mk3 on a section of line, so I tried it & liked it.

Compare that to the 7.8mm you mentioned & it is only 0.7mm out. That sounds like very little but if you look just consider the gap, it is nearly 20% bigger...but does it look any different? I think it does.

Peco's bullhead has sleepers spaced at 8.5mm centres, so I also made a template to space code 75 FB at the same spacings & have track which I think looks way better.

It takes me 30 minutes instead of 5 to lay a length of track. This is probably not for everyone but I think the end result justifies the extra time & effort.

 

As for 75v100, I got told only this morning that 100 is more robust & therefore better for an exhibition layout. This is something I completely disagree with.

[Phil S]

No one in this discussion appears to have drawn any comparison to the WEIGHT of RAIL used in reality 1:1 on differing lines - surely the most relevant piece of info ??

What are current Network Rail ' 1 standard of overkill fits all' for mainline and country branch - what were the BR Standards in the 50's or 60's

What axle weights do the various wigths of rail support - and with what sleeper spacing (varying around joints too)

 

The Malmbanan in Sweden & Norway is built  now for 30 Tonne axle loads - and 6,800 Ton trains hauled by IOREs.  This has been increased over the years.   Narrow Gauge lines in Northern Germany look as if they are built with mainline rail .. almost a Tri-ang Super 4 appearance !

HS1  is built with what ?    Code 83 is is predominant 'scale' track weight used in H0 - although 100 is also available from Piko and Fleischmann. I am not aware of any COde 75 for std gauge H0 .....  and since 00 is 8/7 the size of H0...    but then UK loading gauges are smaller than the continent UIC or Scandinavian loadng gauges.