Building O gauge track using Peco Individulay - advice sought

[ThePurplePrimer]

Hi guys

 

I am planning on building some O gauge trackwork using Peco code 124 individulay items

 

They do sleepering - running chairs and slide chairs - all in plastic

 

I will be building to 0-MF standards with 1.5mm flangeways and 1.75 through the checkrails.

 

With only the single type of 'normal' chair available it means I am going to have to chop chairs down for clearance - for eg between the running rail and the checkrail. Due to the fact I am building short and tight turnouts my checkrails are only supported by 4 timbers so I need to get as much support as I can from the chairs but also need to chop them down quite a bit to get the 1.75 required between the rails.

 

Has anyone here made track using these components - if so could you offer some advice - or photos of how you did it please

 

PS - I know C&L offer more chair options but for this project I would like to stick to the Peco parts ( the Peco rail is different in profile )

[hayfield]

Use bits of brass shim to attach the wing rails to the Vee and check rails to the stock rails, the only issue I can foresee is that you may need to gauge widen the check rail gap owing to the sharp radius, though you must maintain the back to back gap between the wing and check rails 

[bertiedog]

Just setting up making three points using the Peco 0 gauge parts, so far no issues, I am using the Peco sleepers as well. As the Chairs are ABS or similar, they cut and sand well to trim for the check rails. The lot matches the track quite well.

 

I think one area I may alter a bit is the moving rails, the switch blades, and the chairs just before the slide chair area may be split to fit around a small brass screw set to take the rail, soldered on at running height, After getting it working the half chairs can be glued back to cover the screw entirely. Just adds a bit of strength where needed.

 

First tests show the rail fits the chairs very well, but I think, again after getting the point up and running, each chair to rail contact should have some thin grade superglue run into the joint to strengthen it. Any weathering paint will cover the white marks, which can be brushed off with an old toothbrush anyway.

 

I am not electrically switching the moving blades, they remain bonded to the outer running rails, with just the crossing frog insulated, and switched over by a micro switch. This means a break in the blades, but with pre planning a small piece of PC board can be soldered under the gap to keep it in line and level jointed. Thin Fibre glass board would be best. The gap can be filled with a dab of epoxy glue, cut and sanded to the bullhead rail profile, with a knife, after it is set hard.

 

If you want very light operation of the blades, then put another break further down the blade, and solder fine phosphor bronze strip into place on the sides like a fish plate. The blade will bend at the joint, and the strip will last as long as the point! It allows smaller solenoids etc., to be used.

 

Based on experience with OO and P4 the tie bar can be made from Tufnol SRBP board or PC board in fibre glass or SRBP. With  the larger sizes in 0 gauge do not solder to the copper surface, use small BA brass bolts screwed into the Tufnol, and solder the blades to the bolt side. The insulted Tufnol tie bar can then be fitted with fake tiebar parts in brass or nickel, for a good cosmetic look. Tufnol is sold in bars and sheets on Ebay, Whale grade is paper based, Carp is cloth based, but expensive.lots is sold as SRBP board or Bakelite board. All will work perfectly in points

 

In setting up the point, and using DCC, sometimes the advice is to increase clearances to help stop shorts etc as the metal wheeled stock goes over the points, but the better approach is to build to a standard and adjust the stock! No shorts will occur with a correctly made point.

 

I would advise on erring towards tight check rails on the frogs( talking about a few thou), and then easing the check way with a fine file till prefect.

 

Also a tiny point, when the bullhead is sharply bent for the blade at the frog, the bend tends to expand the thickness height of the code 124 a fraction, leaving a tiny bump at the bend, again sand or file flat on finishing the point. Nickel silver is best sanded in fine stages, start at 150 grit, going finer, and get some 1500 or more to polish the rail top for a fine finish, or it will pick up crud on the still "rough" surface.

 

It has been suggested by others that the entire "frog" can be assembled on PC board, and fitted as a unit, but then you have to be very careful to get the rail top level on fitting the frog. I did this in P4, but feel it may not be needed in the larger 0 scale point, as the chairs are so much bigger.

 

Also I would suggest that each approach to the point is fitted with spare loose Peco sleepers and chairs from the plain Peco bullhead track, as these are stronger than the ABS ones and automatically in gauge. This will not work for gauge widened curves of course.

 

Stephen.

Edited December 6, 2016 by bertiedog

[bertiedog]

Chair with small brass screw underneath

 

 

Only rough sketch to show screw under the rail hidden by the chair. Suitable countersunk brass wood screws are sold as dolls house screws on Ebay etc.

 

Stephen

[martin_wynne]

Has anyone here made track using these components - if so could you offer some advice - or photos of how you did it please

 

See: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/117350-peco-points-in-o-scale-queries-about-parts/

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/117350-peco-points-in-o-scale-queries-about-parts/&do=findComment&comment=2517012

 

from which:

 

 

Martin.

Edited December 6, 2016 by martin_wynne

[brossard]

Never thought Martin would use my poor efforts to illustrate something.   ...and me not using Templot yet.

 

John

[jim.snowdon]

Use bits of brass shim to attach the wing rails to the Vee and check rails to the stock rails, the only issue I can foresee is that you may need to gauge widen the check rail gap owing to the sharp radius, though you must maintain the back to back gap between the wing and check rails

 

The distance across the wing and check rails is unimportant, so long as it is less than the back to back for the wheelsets. The check rails are gauged from the crossing nose and their position does not change with gauge widening; the check rail flangeway does increase by the same amount as the gauge widening. The crossing flangeway width is relatively unimportant save for the need to provide adequate support for the wheels as they cross it.

 

Jim

[Greenmodelmonkey]

Hi guys

I am planning on building some O gauge trackwork using Peco code 124 individulay items

They do sleepering - running chairs and slide chairs - all in plastic

I will be building to 0-MF standards with 1.5mm flangeways and 1.75 through the checkrails.

With only the single type of 'normal' chair available it means I am going to have to chop chairs down for clearance - for eg between the running rail and the checkrail. Due to the fact I am building short and tight turnouts my checkrails are only supported by 4 timbers so I need to get as much support as I can from the chairs but also need to chop them down quite a bit to get the 1.75 required between the rails.

Has anyone here made track using these components - if so could you offer some advice - or photos of how you did it please

PS - I know C&L offer more chair options but for this project I would like to stick to the Peco parts ( the Peco rail is different in profile )

Hi the following topic link should help you...

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/111464-gwr-scale-track-components/

 

This topic was posted by me on the this website. The good news is that contained in it is a fix if you want to use Peco rail as this rail section fits the C&L and Exactoscale chairs better than the C&L bullhead rail without any modification.

 

As for Peco individual components I tried them but hey are too crude mouldings compared to the chairs on their flexitrack an point work hence I moved to using C&L and Exactoscale chairs but using Peco rail section. The towards the end of the topic you will see a point made as described above using Peco rail section.

 

Hope his helps,

Mick

[Greenmodelmonkey]

Thought it would be easier to show photos of my points on this thread to help...

 

Scratch Built 'USING Peco Code 124 RAIL' v Peco Modified (Note: Ambis stretchers not shown in these photos, they are being reworked, and yes I still have the odd angled sleepers, so no need to comment on this as I know... LoL)

 

Hope the photos show what can be done to improve a Peco O gauge point to make it look more prototypical. When painted and weathered it should will look the part even further.

 

It was quicker to modify than to scratch build (and cheaper) and I do still have a preference for my scratch built version. Again if you don't know the prototype in detail and are not as concerned about fidelity then it is good enough for most (I hope!).

 

Hope you find photos interesting as a comparison....

 

IMG_0084_edited-1.jpg

 

IMG_0083_edited-1.jpg

 

IMG_0078.JPG

 

IMG_0082_edited-1.jpg

Attached Thumbnails

IMG_0080_edited-2.jpg

Hi the following topic link should help you...http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/111464-gwr-scale-track-components/

This topic was posted by me on the this website. The good news is that contained in it is a fix if you want to use Peco rail as this rail section fits the C&L and Exactoscale chairs better than the C&L bullhead rail without any modification.

As for Peco individual components I tried them but hey are too crude mouldings compared to the chairs on their flexitrack an point work hence I moved to using C&L and Exactoscale chairs but using Peco rail section. The towards the end of the topic you will see a point made as described above using Peco rail section.

Hope his helps,

Mick

Edited December 6, 2016 by Greenmodelmonkey

[Greenmodelmonkey]

Thought it would be easier to show photos of my points on this thread to help...

Scratch Built 'USING Peco Code 124 RAIL' v Peco Modified

 

SORRY JUST NOTICED PHOTOS DID NOT COPY ACROSS SO SUGGEST YOU FOLLOW THE LINK IN MY ORIGINAL POST ABOVE TO VIEW THEM....

[bertiedog]

The Peco chairs do not match the track chairs? Well the ones that came do, same three bolt pattern with the straight edge as the Peco 124 bullhead track. I wonder if they have re-tooled the product as C&L list it as "new". The only difference is the base under the rail section being larger, I presume to strengthen the chair.

 

IL-702 Chairs

 

The equivalent product from C&L in three bolts are these

 

 

Which are rounded base edges and not the same as Peco. They also have equal jaws height, while Peco reduce the inner jaw to get better clearance with the flanges, which are very variable in RTR 0 gauge, especially off any vintage.

 

The cost is also far higher for the C&L versions, which I assume are made of ABS and are suitable to glue as with the 4mm versions. I did see the brass chairs but cost would begin to run up on a simple project for a working point to match Peco.

 

Stephen

Edited December 6, 2016 by bertiedog

[hayfield]

The distance across the wing and check rails is unimportant, so long as it is less than the back to back for the wheelsets. The check rails are gauged from the crossing nose and their position does not change with gauge widening; the check rail flangeway does increase by the same amount as the gauge widening. The crossing flangeway width is relatively unimportant save for the need to provide adequate support for the wheels as they cross it.

 

Jim

 

 

Jim

 

That is basically what I have said, whilst missing out the fact that the check rail is always gauged from the vee, but it is equally important to have the wing rail set properly for the standards of the gauge variant being used (0Mf if I am not mistaken in this case) for faultless running

[jim.snowdon]

Fair enough. I have got rather used to people, certain;ly in 0 gauge, having the idea that back to back is the all important dimension, when it isn't, along with the erroneous concept of using flangeway gauges both wing and check rails. They are good for wing rails, subject to any issues of gauge widening, but not for check rails.

 

Jim

[hayfield]

Fair enough. I have got rather used to people, certain;ly in 0 gauge, having the idea that back to back is the all important dimension, when it isn't, along with the erroneous concept of using flangeway gauges both wing and check rails. They are good for wing rails, subject to any issues of gauge widening, but not for check rails.

 

Jim

Jim

 

The problem of setting the wing and check rails stem certainly from the old coarse 00 BF standards and I guess 7 mm suffers the same, when you get down to 00sf & 0mf the importance of these gaps increase. With 00bf there were no check rail gauges that I know of easily available, and the same metal bar gauge was used on both wing and check rails.

 

At my old club the chap building the 0 gauge layout wanted to make both the check and wing rail gaps finer, without realising the consequences until he tried running a loco. I just about managed to refrain from saying I told you so. Then you have those using 00 bf who want to copy the gauges with finer tolerances and gauge widen, sadly not enough is taught about track building. 

 

Thanks for correcting my omission 

[bertiedog]

Track should always be to the standards published, gauges can be made in minutes from brass sheet and a file, with a vernier to measure things. Back to back becomes vital to the stock, and assumes perfect track laying to standard, with correct profile wheels and flanges.

Simply do not mess with the dimensions, gauges will check everything, you do not need lathe turned roller gauges to build pointwork, in O gauge a good steel rule and a magnifier could do it, but far better buy a cheap electronic vernier gauge, which in itself can measure all the dimensions if you do not make the gauges.

Always build to tight flangeways, they can be filed out a bit to perfect the running, never make them wider! Another common failure on home made points is to cut the v nose short, it will increase any bumps. Make it tight to the standard, and dress the v tip with a fine file to get it perfect length.

Once the track is right, then back to back becomes vital on all stock.

A lot of descriptions of point making, make it sound too complex, when it is all quite simple in fact. In 0 gauge it should be extremely easy, due to the large sizes.

Stephen.

[martin_wynne]

With 00bf there were no check rail gauges that I know of easily available

 

Hi John,

 

00-BF uses the same check rail gauges as 00-SF (because they are both running the same wheels).

 

Unfortunately the 00-SF check rail gauges seem to have gone missing from the C&L web site.

 

For an explanation of the dimensions, see: http://4-sf.uk/dimensions.htm

 

Despite assertions elsewhere, back-to-back is only a minimum dimension. It is often better to increase it where flanges are thinner, up to the maximum back-to-flange dimension.

 

Here's some stuff I have posted several times, which is easily adapted to 0 gauge. Preferably using Debs 0-MF gauges:

 

 

 

If you are not sure of which wheels you are dealing with, measure the width of them:

For 00-SF:

 

Wheels 2.8mm wide -- back-to-back 14.4mm MAX.

Wheels 2.5mm wide -- back-to-back 14.5mm MAX.

Wheels 2.3mm wide -- back-to-back 14.6mm MAX.

For 00-SF the MIN back-to-back is 14.3mm for all of them.

(For 00-BF the MIN back-to-back is 14.1mm for all of them.)

 

But for best results, ignore your back-to-back gauges. If you have 4-SF check gauges you can make yourself a simple wheel checking fixture which I described on RMweb recently. This not only gives better results, it ensures your wheels are matched to the actual track you will be building.

 

Here's the link for that -- see this and subsequent posts on RMweb: 4-SF wheel setting fixture

 

Thanks to Dave (Acklam) for this picture.

 

1. Fix this rail first. It represents the crossing vee. There is a flat on the check gauge so that it can be used where the vee won't fit in the slot.

2. Fix this rail second, using the check gauge tool. It represents the check rail.

3. Fix this rail third, using the 1.0mm shim. It represents the wing rail. it doesn't engage with the check gauge tool.

4. Fix this rail last, anywhere you like. Its sole purpose in testing the wheels is to support the wheel. It represents the opposite running rail. A good way to identify it in future is to fix it upside down, or make it longer or shorter than the other rails.

Mark which rail is which. Don't get rails 1. and 4. muddled up.

 

In using the fixture,

1. hold the back of one wheel against rail 2.

2. gently lower the other wheel onto rail 1.

3. the wheel flange should just clear the side of rail 1. without rubbing, but ideally leaving only a fraction of daylight showing between them.

4. the back of that wheel should easily clear rail 3.

With care, a testing fixture like this if accurately made is a better way of setting the wheels than using a back-to-back gauge, because it allows for different flange thicknesses, and the actual track you are building.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[brossard]

Such a lot of wisdom here, great discussion.  Not sure I can absorb it all but certainly worth taking heed.  Thanks all.

 

John

[Kendo54]

Tony Blair said "education, education, education". Wow, I say "information, information, information". Just starting an O gauge layout and this is invaluable. All I have to do is read &understand. !!!!!  Many thanks

 

[hayfield]

I recently had a stroke of luck in being able to buy second hand a set of  0 gauge (32mm) common crossing assembly jigs from someone who had bought a collection of items and had no use for the track building parts (also have some gauges to sell), these jigs make life so much easier and as they are milled from aluminum bar seem quite robust, and look to be unused, The set comprises of 1-5, 1-6, 1-7 and 1-8, so covers quite a good selection for home layouts.

 

For 7mm track I also bought some months ago a disc sander from Lidl which is a great help in removing metal as 7mm rail has a mass of just under 4 times that of 4 mm rail, think they cost about £30, well worth buying