Jump to content
 

Better point geometry for OO gauge layouts


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
On 08/08/2019 at 13:25, Jeff Smith said:

Surely this has been covered in several threads.  Peco obviously had a choice to make; having decided to produce a BH range with appropriate 1/76 sleeper spacing they had to either go with prototype geometry or stick with existing Streamline geometry.  Presumably they stuck with the existing for the interoperability market.

The answer is simple, those that don't like the standard Peco 12 degrees, should get together and approach a manufacturer (even Peco) and get a price on making suitable points.

 

The EMGS has done precisely that and made the resulting products available to members only and at EMGS events. In other words cash up front & taking care of the marketing themselves.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, kevinlms said:

The answer is simple, those that don't like the standard Peco 12 degrees, should get together and approach a manufacturer (even Peco) and get a price on making suitable points.

 

 

Went well last time...

Still none the wiser as what was actually nearly ready to produce! 

 

Bearing in mind the majority of UK track point sales are shorter length and tighter radius than the Peco large radius, it’ll be a brave and relatively wealthy person/group to make something longer than the Peco product. I suggest there’s  a sound commercial reason why Peco haven’t done so, and the next ‘new’ item in the range is medium radius. 

https://albionyard.wordpress.com/2019/06/14/great-central-grand-day-out/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
44 minutes ago, PMP said:

Bearing in mind the majority of UK track point sales are shorter length and tighter radius than the Peco large radius, it’ll be a brave and relatively wealthy person/group to make something longer than the Peco product. I suggest there’s  a sound commercial reason why Peco haven’t done so, and the next ‘new’ item in the range is medium radius. 

https://albionyard.wordpress.com/2019/06/14/great-central-grand-day-out/

 

They haven't delivered the previously announced OO Bullhead slips and crossings yet so I don't hold out much hope for swift delivery of the the medium radius Bullheads!

 

The request here is not for longer RTL turnouts as such, rather it's for more variation in geometry, which would in some cases result in longer turnouts but, as Martin pointed out above, doesn't necessarily have to.

 

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The Peco crossings are WIP at the moment, last time I spoke to them they were hoping for last quarter, which has slipped from their earlier in the year hopes. 

 

I’m aware of the geometry variation ‘request’. I’ve used both RTL track, and hand built individual chaired track in the past. All the ‘variation’ was covered in numerous previous threads, the one highlighted in my previous post being one of them. And as @kevinlms stated, if people want them, they’ll have to fund them.

Peco whom having chosen matching geometry to what they know sells, (short length and tight radius) are unlikely to vary from that unless there a compelling commercial reason to do so, particularly with such a niche market.

Edited by PMP
Random word insert by phone
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi @Joseph_Pestell, I wasn't aware of your project until yesterday.

 

I can see you made some serious efforts towards creating alternative RTL turnouts but the thread is very long and the page and post references seem to be out of whack so I'm not sure exactly how far you got.

 

Now that we know what the Peco Bullhead products look like and that they seem to be sticking with their existing geometry, I wonder if a range of complementary products might be a feasible proposition?

  • Similar chair design
  • Similar sleepering
  • The same rail profile
  • Similar electrical design (but avoiding the shorting problems...)
  • Similar systematic geometry with a known angle at the rail joins (6, 7, 8 degrees?) and 45mm between track centres.
  • Manufactured in modern small run technology
  • Sold online only

I imagine that, in combination, the Peco system and such a new system would sell more than either alone. Each would enhance the other.

 

I realise I'm largely going over old ground but maybe there's something slightly different here and maybe conditions have changed to make it workable this time.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Agreed, the current large radius Peco point work can be somewhat limiting in some instances.

 

Larger radius RTL turnouts could transform the appearance of many model railways. New projects, especially those with the benefit of space, eg clubs, could take full advantage of even more, prototypical formations. Bogie stock, gliding across from one track to another would look stunning.

 

Space, especially in 4mm scale is the issue when considering higher speed geometry with lengthy transition curves added in; a double junction could well require 4 feet or so for the turnouts alone. This is where N gauge could take advantage of even larger radii and modellers in that scale might well convince Peco (or others) that there is a market for this enhanced trackwork, maybe even a switched diamond thrown in!

 

Many modellers have spent countless hours (not to mention money) on their hobby and to start over would not be an option. To replace what is the fundamental element of any railway, the permanent way, with new geometry might not be so appealing, particularly when it impacts on the scenic aspect and to do so might be considered an "upgrade too far."

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 09/08/2019 at 10:56, Nick C said:

 

Off-topic I know, but why do so many people in the model world insist that 'turnout' is the correct term, when everyone I've ever come across on the prototype uses 'point'? Was it a difference between companies? I know that 'turnout' tends to be used more in the US (though they prefer 'switch')

 

There is a reason for Peco's turnout and crossings geometry,which is that they are all compatible with each other.

 

I can understand some modellers wanting something a bit more prototypical, but in supplying an item in a more prototypical format (ie A6) it can in some instances cause a trach spacing issue unless the modeller is happy to adapt the units. An example being either a crossover or a junction where two or more units will need splicing together to maintain a decent/workable tract centres 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Right Away said:

Agreed, the current large radius Peco point work can be somewhat limiting in some instances.

 

Larger radius RTL turnouts could transform the appearance of many model railways. New projects, especially those with the benefit of space, eg clubs, could take full advantage of even more, prototypical formations. Bogie stock, gliding across from one track to another would look stunning.

 

Space, especially in 4mm scale is the issue when considering higher speed geometry with lengthy transition curves added in; a double junction could well require 4 feet or so for the turnouts alone. This is where N gauge could take advantage of even larger radii and modellers in that scale might well convince Peco (or others) that there is a market for this enhanced trackwork, maybe even a switched diamond thrown in!

 

Many modellers have spent countless hours (not to mention money) on their hobby and to start over would not be an option. To replace what is the fundamental element of any railway, the permanent way, with new geometry might not be so appealing, particularly when it impacts on the scenic aspect and to do so might be considered an "upgrade too far."

 

 

 

 

It would for me.  I plan to replace my Streamline with code 75 BH eventually, but only want to relay the track; I have no intention of digging up my platform or interfering with the scenery; it would probably be easier to rebuild the layout from scratch.  In the meantime, I'm not that unhappy with my Streamline, which works reliably and it is only when i see bullhead track at shows or in photos here that I am dissatisfied with it.

 

And relaying with code 75 will introduce a compatibility issue, not in geometry but in rail height, as the fiddle yard must perforce rely on setrack components for space reasons; it will remain mostly Streamline though I do plan a re-jigging of the throat to use space more efficiently.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
23 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi @Joseph_Pestell, I wasn't aware of your project until yesterday.

 

I can see you made some serious efforts towards creating alternative RTL turnouts but the thread is very long and the page and post references seem to be out of whack so I'm not sure exactly how far you got.

 

Now that we know what the Peco Bullhead products look like and that they seem to be sticking with their existing geometry, I wonder if a range of complementary products might be a feasible proposition?

  • Similar chair design
  • Similar sleepering
  • The same rail profile
  • Similar electrical design (but avoiding the shorting problems...)
  • Similar systematic geometry with a known angle at the rail joins (6, 7, 8 degrees?) and 45mm between track centres.
  • Manufactured in modern small run technology
  • Sold online only

I imagine that, in combination, the Peco system and such a new system would sell more than either alone. Each would enhance the other.

 

I realise I'm largely going over old ground but maybe there's something slightly different here and maybe conditions have changed to make it workable this time.

 

 

Phil,

I think that you are right that there is still a market opportunity for something that is similar enough to the Peco 75BH to be compatible with it. This because Peco chose to stay with their traditional UK geometry rather than use the prototype system used in their 83 FB range.

Had my first sight yesterday, at Railwells, of a pre-production EMGS (Peco) B6. Simply superb and taking no more space than the large radius Peco 75BH despite being in EM (an 00 B6 would be shorter).

Broadly, what I  was planning meets your criteria above. A lot of the design/drawing work has been done. Main obstacle has been finding a UK plastics moulder who wants to do the job but a chance meeting recently may have that sorted.

Joseph

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, The Johnster said:

...relaying with code 75 will introduce a compatibility issue, not in geometry but in rail height, as the fiddle yard must perforce rely on setrack components for space reasons; it will remain mostly Streamline though I do plan a re-jigging of the throat to use space more efficiently.

The height matching is frankly so simple as to be trivial. Take code 100 rail joiner, crush one end flat, solder on top of the crushed area half a code 75 rail joiner, and there's your adjustable rail top height matching system. Not cosmetically beautiful, so best used 'off-scene'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
23 hours ago, The Johnster said:

It would for me.  I plan to replace my Streamline with code 75 BH eventually, but only want to relay the track; I have no intention of digging up my platform or interfering with the scenery; it would probably be easier to rebuild the layout from scratch.  In the meantime, I'm not that unhappy with my Streamline, which works reliably and it is only when i see bullhead track at shows or in photos here that I am dissatisfied with it.

 

And relaying with code 75 will introduce a compatibility issue, not in geometry but in rail height, as the fiddle yard must perforce rely on setrack components for space reasons; it will remain mostly Streamline though I do plan a re-jigging of the throat to use space more efficiently.

I use SMP track in my visible area, laid on 3mm cork, while the off-stage track is Peco code 75, laid on 2mm cork. This matches the rail top heights as near as dammit. I'm sure that the same concept would work between Peco code 75 BH and code 100 Setrack, although you might have to fiddle about with the rail joiners at the transition.

 

Edit: I didn't read on to 34theletterbetweenB&D's post before posting this.

Edited by St Enodoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Yes, I was considering underlay, but I don't like it, preferring to mount my track solidly to the baseboard.  Noise is not an issue for me and I don't need to build up a ballast shoulder as I would on a main line layout.  34's method is the answer for me!

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Yes, I was considering underlay, but I don't like it, preferring to mount my track solidly to the baseboard.  Noise is not an issue for me and I don't need to build up a ballast shoulder as I would on a main line layout.  34's method is the answer for me!

That will certainly match the rail top height but you'll still need some packing under the sleepers, if only for a short distance, to support the code 75.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 09/08/2019 at 10:56, Nick C said:

 

Off-topic I know, but why do so many people in the model world insist that 'turnout' is the correct term, when everyone I've ever come across on the prototype uses 'point'? Was it a difference between companies? I know that 'turnout' tends to be used more in the US (though they prefer 'switch')

On 09/08/2019 Sol Said:

Peco call them turnouts.

 

Peco also offer "Catch Turnouts" so I wouldn't take their descriptions as gospel. I do find this insistence on their being "the correct word"  for things a bit tiresome as our language, based on usage, simply doesn't work that way.

 

PW engineers refer to turnouts for what everyone else using British English (including the OED) call points,  and they also use switch and crossing work as the generic term for all their track formations. That's fair enough, they need precise terms for their work and presumably moved gradually during the interwar period from points and crossings to switches and crossings to avoid any confusion with the common usage of points. *  However, to then insist that everyone else using the more generic points or pointwork is "wrong" seems like professional arrogance. Switch probably and turnout certainly were originally American terms  that have been adopted by British and other English speaking PW engineers but we're then told we're wrong to use the equally American term frog though that appears in the advertising of most international suppliers of trackwork - often but not always in the context of cast frogs. 

 

Switch and crossing Work may be the term used by British PW engineers but it's a clumsy term only made obscure by abbreviation to S&C. Nobody is going to refer to the '8.23 running late because of  "an S&C failure at Faversham" any more than anyone is going to pull you up for referring to an aerodrome (the internationally recognised term) as an airport, airfield, or even airstrip. In the appropriate context they're all valid terms and so are points

 

*I have a copy of the 1950 reprint of the Permanent Way Insitution's "British Railway Track"  First edition 1943 and, though it starts by referring to "pairs or sets of switches or points and crossings" the two words are used fairly interchangeably throughout the book so it was clearly a time of transition of terms.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
49 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

PW engineers refer to turnouts for what everyone else using British English (including the OED) call points

 

Except for UK railway modellers, the general public and everyone else using British English (including the OED) correctly refer to points meaning the moving rails which deflect trains from one line to another. i.e. a set of pointed blade rails, and the fittings and working parts which go with them. Hence station announcements such as "train delayed because of frozen points".  The general public and everyone else using British English (including the OED) do not concern themselves with how those working parts are fitted into the rest of the rails.

 

Where they are fitted into the rails to create a junction where one line of track separates into two lines of track, p.w. engineers create a formation called a turnout. Hardly anyone outside the p.w. world needs to know that term. Even railway operating staff barely need to know it because most of the time they are concerned only with the working points at the business end of it. Even signallers for example have levers with labels such as "Points No. 3" with no indication about whether they are part of a turnout, a slip, or any other formation.

 

But railway modellers do need to know the term turnout because model track is usually supplied in such units. In most of the world modellers do correctly use the term turnout for such an item. That's why Peco with a big export market use it. But for some reason, in the UK modellers tend to refer to a turnout as a point despite the fact that a point means something else entirely, i.e. a single point blade.

 

Does it matter? Not really. But it's a shame to use the wrong term when you could just as easily use the right one -- especially if the object of the exercise is to replicate the prototype.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited by martin_wynne
  • Like 5
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, sharris said:

It would be amusing to see the look on most customers' faces if, on asking a model shop owner for a pair of points, they were presented with a packet of C&L ready-milled blades.

 

 I doubt if many of the shop staff know the difference, most would have no idea of the technicalities. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Except for UK railway modellers, the general public and everyone else using British English (including the OED) correctly refer to points meaning the moving rails which deflect trains from one line to another. i.e. a set of pointed blade rails, and the fittings and working parts which go with them. Hence station announcements such as "train delayed because of frozen points".  The general public and everyone else using British English (including the OED) do not concern themselves with how those working parts are fitted into the rest of the rails.

 

Where they are fitted into the rails to create a junction where one line of track separates into two lines of track, p.w. engineers create a formation called a turnout. Hardly anyone outside the p.w. world needs to know that term. Even railway operating staff barely need to know it because most of the time they are concerned only with the working points at the business end of it. Even signallers for example have levers with labels such as "Points No. 3" with no indication about whether they are part of a turnout, a slip, or any other formation.

 

But railway modellers do need to know the term turnout because model track is usually supplied in such units. In most of the world modellers do correctly use the term turnout for such an item. That's why Peco with a big export market use it. But for some reason, in the UK modellers tend to refer to a turnout as a point despite the fact that a point means something else entirely, i.e. a single point blade.

 

Does it matter? Not really. But it's a shame to use the wrong term when you could just as easily use the right one -- especially if the object of the exercise is to replicate the prototype.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Hi Martin

We've had this discussion before and we're not going to agree but I find the origin and development of these terms very interesting. I'm still not sure when turnout came into common use in British PW circles but it seems to have been around the 1930s. 

There does now seem to be an interesting situation with the terminology used by PW in that there is a switch with switch rails but no point blade, or points, There are facing points, trap points and point machines but nothing in the current PW lexicon actually called points.

I think you assume that everyone's common defnition of points  just means the moving parts but I'm equally sure that most people, if they thought about it all, would include the crossing and closure rails in their idea of what constitutes points or a set of points.

In this context most people can  or could include the RAIB

This is from the report on the Southall East derailment in 2002

The bogie was derailed when the flange of a wheel struck one half of a broken fishplate which had lodged in the nose of a cast manganese steel crossover forming part of the points;

and from the RAIBs initial report on the 2007 Grayrigg accident

Throughout the report the term Switches and Crossings (S&C) is used to describe all
means of intersection of railway lines, including diamonds, slips, and other more complex
layouts. The term ‘points’ is used when specific reference is made to points or the points
at Lambrigg.

and more specifically

In the UK the two switch rails are maintained a set distance apart and are made to move at the same time by a series of stretcher bars. The total assembly of switch and stock rails with stretcher bars are referred to as ‘the switches’, and together with a crossing comprise the points,

Curiously that definition is changed in the 2008 final report where points only refers to the switch panel itself. That does itself lead to anomalies though such as "68 Each of the two crossovers at Lambrigg consists of two points. One crossover is in the facing direction while the other is trailing" 

The term switch in British railway use does go further back than I'd thought and appears in the 1858 "First Requirements of Inspecting Officers" though there it's immediately followed by references to facing points. British Railway Track (1943) does seem to regard them as synonyms though I'm not sure that was true of all the railway companies.

 

Cheers

David

 

 

Edited by Pacific231G
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I will not burn you as I model also continental :-) 

But if we speak continental there is the company Tillig, manufacturing even longer points than Roco. 6.3 degrees and radius 2200mm.

 

 

There are also flexi point kits. Means you purchase a point kit and during assembly you decide about any curves in it. (as far as I know the frog angle is fixed, but you could do curved points of any geometry you want). There are installation instructions on the web

 

But: you pay a price for them. Both Roco and Tillig are much more expensive than Peco. 

And: The space needed is the main problem. Who has the necessary space to go exact scale with the pointwork? I don't. And I am sure I am not alone....

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 21/09/2019 at 16:53, Vecchio said:

I will not burn you as I model also continental :-) 

But if we speak continental there is the company Tillig, manufacturing even longer points than Roco. 6.3 degrees and radius 2200mm.

 

 

There are also flexi point kits. Means you purchase a point kit and during assembly you decide about any curves in it. (as far as I know the frog angle is fixed, but you could do curved points of any geometry you want). There are installation instructions on the web

 

But: you pay a price for them. Both Roco and Tillig are much more expensive than Peco. 

And: The space needed is the main problem. Who has the necessary space to go exact scale with the pointwork? I don't. And I am sure I am not alone....

 

 

I would use Tillig if I had a permanent layout but I'm a carpet operator unfortunately . I use Trix C-track which is plug and play. No messing around with wires as the whole layout becomes live and the electrofrogs are directional. The metal frogs can be switched off underneath. 12.1 degrees.

I've also got some Kato unitrack Ho which is also code 83 rail profile. Cheaper than Marklin Trix-C track but not quite as good. The express points are 10 degrees with geometry to match.

 

 

 

Edited by maico
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...