Better point geometry for OO gauge layouts

[Mike Storey]

Despite its US appearance, I am going to use Peco Code 83 for my indoor layout (when I ever get around to building it). I have trialled a crossover on my bit of test track and am convinced. The appearance of bogie stock traversing a B8 is far superior to anything in the Code 75 range, and, for me, makes up for the considerable efforts I will need to make to disguise it as UK track, as best I can.

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

All good points (sorry) and great ideas but what are the chances that Peco will do anything like that in our lifetimes?

 

Look at the development speed of the Bullhead range - and even the first bullhead points are flawed and in need of revision!

 

Perhaps it needs someone new to step in and shake things up a bit.

 

Or is it just that they've turned out (equally sorry) to be good points? 

 

Looking at it from the perspective of a prospective new player in RTL, I don't see it happening much as I like the idea.  You'd need a product significantly better than Peco with compatible profile and geometry, and the only way I'd say you could make such an impact would be with ready ballasted Kato type track.  This would lead to howls of protest from everybody who reckoned that the ballast didn't look right, which would be about 99.99999recurring % of us.  It's a possibility, though, I suppose; you could hide point motors and the like in the preformed ballast moulding.

 

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

21 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

Despite its US appearance, I am going to use Peco Code 83 for my indoor layout (when I ever get around to building it). I have trialled a crossover on my bit of test track and am convinced. The appearance of bogie stock traversing a B8 is far superior to anything in the Code 75 range, and, for me, makes up for the considerable efforts I will need to make to disguise it as UK track, as best I can.

And there's the thing, Peco already have the FB rail product proven, RTL HO track with correct formations. With OO proportioned sleeper base 'they are there'...

[DCB]

On 05/08/2019 at 18:20, Foden said:

I'm sure it's a question that's been raised before, and certainly one that many a modeller has considered at the design stage, and that's 'I want to create a OO gauge layout, but the standard Peco geometry pointwork just doesn't work for me'

 

Personally, I'm quite surprised in this era of exquisitely detailed RTR locos and stock, and now beautiful RTR bullhead track,  that Peco or AN-Other manufacturer hasn't thought to offer ready made longer turnouts in OO. Or maybe they have, but either way, as of right now, we have Peco long turnouts, and nothing else 'off the shelf' as it were.

So, if one wanted to model a realistic mainline turnout, and didn't want to convert to EM or P4, what options are there for the OO modeller?

Its not just longer but narrower points as well, so two forming a crossover will give around a 43mm correct track centres instead of the 50.8mm 2" or whatever Peco setting.  Squeezing down the track centres makes a big difference to appearance and saves a bit of length, sort of a win win really.  OK you can't get a King and a 70ft coach round 3ft radius curves simultaneously  at 43mm spacing but if you want 6ft or 12 ft radius points I guess you will be happy with 6ft or 12ft min radius anyway.

[Jeff Smith]

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.

[Pete the Elaner]

5 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

Its not just longer but narrower points as well, so two forming a crossover will give around a 43mm correct track centres instead of the 50.8mm 2" or whatever Peco setting.  Squeezing down the track centres makes a big difference to appearance and saves a bit of length, sort of a win win really.  OK you can't get a King and a 70ft coach round 3ft radius curves simultaneously  at 43mm spacing but if you want 6ft or 12 ft radius points I guess you will be happy with 6ft or 12ft min radius anyway.

You can cut the points to make the track centres narrower. We have done it at the club on the layout we are currently re-building & a friend did it on

his layout using early prototypes I knocked up.

 

The work on our club layout is much more recent, but it also allowed us to get rid of the last bearer which is at an angle to the main line (prototypically incorrect on a crossing & it annoys 2 of us in particular).

We even managed to line bearers up with those on their adjacent rails too.

It was a bit of effort but far we found it far more satisfying than just laying the track down. Our post-club pint went down very well that night 

 

Whether or not it is worth the effort is a matter of opinion, but if you were not bothered, you would probably not be reading this thread!

[Harlequin]

3 hours ago, 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.

Yes, and that's very sensible (if only they'd get a move on with the idea!) but there's nothing to stop them producing additional products, compatible in all ways with Streamline but with new geometry that allows subtler formations to be created.

 

For instance, here's the junction from Iain Rice's Downingham mentioned above, which he described as being, "designed around the geometry of Peco Streamline":

I've used four medium radius turnouts and a long crossing and you can see that it nearly works but, because of the strictures of the 12 degree Streamline angle, the bottom route has an unwanted bow which creates two ugly reverse curves.

 

Maybe Mr Rice's sense of aesthetic beauty overcame his sense of geometry when he drew that formation. Completely understandably.

 

Another case in point is the Single and Double Slip. Streamline geometry means that they can only ever be small radius and that makes them really clunky to use in many situations, especially main line junctions. You can make all your formations as smooth as possible but if you need a slip it has to be small radius and you have to put up with vehicles turning rather abruptly through them.

 

Streamline is a good compromise and helps to compress track plans into the kind of spaces available to us but it seems from this thread that there's a substantial demand for a wider range of options. Perhaps "Streamline+" with 6 degree or 9 degree turning angles?

 

I take the point @Pete the Elaner made that competition might be dangerous to Peco. I'm sure we all want them to thrive but they are a lumbering giant in their little market niche, almost a monopoly, and they need something to buck them up!

 

[Clive Mortimore]

We as modellers do have choices regarding 00 track.

 

We can buy the most popular track sold in most model shops......Hornby

 

We can opt for the various types of ready to lay track that Peco offer. Their range is very good especially since the introduction of their bullhead track. 

 

There are alternatives to Peco, Tilling is one, as has been mentioned. International internet shopping makes life easier.

 

We can build our own, there is the C&L range, and SMP. Someone has mentioned Marcway if you feel you cannot build your own.

 

To get that bespoke trackwork that your favorite branch line terminus had there is Martyn's wonderful Templot. 

 

I have built my own track in the past, running trains over it was not as good as I would have liked. 

This was my last attempt at building my own track.

 

Two years ago I took early retirement and now have a railway room that is 20 ft by 15 ft. I wanted to get a layout up and running as soon as I could so I chose Peco track knowing all the flaws it has. Conversely all you need to do is put rail joiners on the ends and lay it and you have a working train set. I would have liked to have used their Bullhead track but at the time there was only one type of point available and my proposed track plan was asking for different types of points and crossings. I have a reliable working layout that is fun to operate.

 

Could or would I have achieved something similar using an alternative, like making my own track, I think I would but I also think I would still be making it. Peco has worked for me, it isn't necessarily the choice for everyone else.  Last night I was driving trains and enjoying myself which is my aim.

 

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Clive Mortimore

[Harlequin]

Hi Clive, I think you're saying that you wanted the convenience and speed of an RTL system but if there had been more variation in the geometry you would have used it. Is that fair? If so, I think that agrees with the broad thrust of this thread.

 

BTW: You said about the Bullhead track, "at the time there was only one type of point available". That is still true today (and there are problems with them)...

 

[Clive Mortimore]

46 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Clive, I think you're saying that you wanted the convenience and speed of an RTL system but if there had been more variation in the geometry you would have used it. Is that fair? If so, I think that agrees with the broad thrust of this thread.

 

BTW: You said about the Bullhead track, "at the time there was only one type of point available". That is still true today (and there are problems with them)...

 

Hi Phil

 

Yes. Also we have a choice as 00 modellers to use a system that meets our needs. I have so much more modelling I want to do plus running my trains using ready to lay track with all its flaws is the best option for me with the number of modelling years I have left. If I were younger I might have taken a different approach, wait for a wider range of Peco bullhead, make my own or if rich enough employ someone to make my track.

 

I was one of the few who kept saying that Peco could produce a more realistic looking track but keep their well used geometry, when everyone else was coming up with reasons why they would not do so. They did, and now with them dipping their toe in the EM gauge water who knows what awaits us. 

 

There will always be the option for modellers to build their own track to which ever standard they want to model in and I know there are loads of modellers who enjoy making their own track. The hobby is about enjoyment. 

[DCB]

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Yes, and that's very sensible (if only they'd get a move on with the idea!) but there's nothing to stop them producing additional products, compatible in all ways with Streamline but with new geometry that allows subtler formations to be created.

 

For instance, here's the junction from Iain Rice's Downingham mentioned above, which he described as being, "designed around the geometry of Peco Streamline":

I've used four medium radius turnouts and a long crossing and you can see that it nearly works but, because of the strictures of the 12 degree Streamline angle, the bottom route has an unwanted bow which creates two ugly reverse curves.

 

Maybe Mr Rice's sense of aesthetic beauty overcame his sense of geometry when he drew that formation. Completely understandably.

 

 

 

It could be Iain Rice's reference was to Peco geometry rather than using RTL Peco products unmodified.   Chopping great chunks off the short crossing and smaller ones off the heel of the points would minimise the reverse curve dog leggy thingy.  I invariably buy second hand track so  don't feel so bad if I ruin a few items in the process of TLoPP design (Total Lack of Pre Planning)

CJ Freezer was if anything worse in the 60 plans series as he often drew a curved diamond with one road on a 2ft radius and the other straight. Completely unlike anything Peco made or make and just about impossible to bodge from Peco components

 

EDIT  Forget I wrote about Iain Rices plan. I double checked using Anyrail and my pile of ruined points and The chop bits off approach only works with the short crossing not the long one.

Edited August 8, 2019 by DavidCBroad
Wrong

[ejstubbs]

6 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I've used four medium radius turnouts and a long crossing and you can see that it nearly works but, because of the strictures of the 12 degree Streamline angle, the bottom route has an unwanted bow which creates two ugly reverse curves.

 

Could you eliminate the bow by using long radius Y turnouts instead of medium radius right & left turnouts on the lower route?  The angle of divergence on those is only six degrees, rather then twelve for the 'handed' turnouts, but they're almost exactly the same length as the medium radius 'handed' turnouts.

[Harlequin]

16 minutes ago, ejstubbs said:

 

Could you eliminate the bow by using long radius Y turnouts instead of medium radius right & left turnouts on the lower route?  The angle of divergence on those is only six degrees, rather then twelve for the 'handed' turnouts, but they're almost exactly the same length as the medium radius 'handed' turnouts.

 

I'm afraid not because the total angle of divergence of the Large Ys is also 12 degrees: -6 for one arm and +6 for the other.

 

[Nick C]

On 06/08/2019 at 09:38, martin_wynne said:

 For example correctly calling them turnouts instead of points.

 

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')

[martin_wynne]

32 minutes ago, 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'?

 

Hi Nick,

1. this is a "set of points". It is the working part which operating staff are referring to when they talk about "points". The other end doesn't move, so it doesn't concern them.

 

2. this is a "turnout" which is the term which permanent-way staff use. Because often the whole thing is renewed or installed as a unit.

 

A "set of points" might be part of a turnout, or it could be part of some other formation such as a slip.

 

it's called a "set of points" because there are two "points" or blades. They are called points because they are pointed.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, 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')

 

I think you will find historically manufacturers referred to turnouts as points

[Nick C]

1 hour ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Nick,

1. this is a "set of points". It is the working part which operating staff are referring to when they talk about "points". The other end doesn't move, so it doesn't concern them.

 

2. this is a "turnout" which is the term which permanent-way staff use. Because often the whole thing is renewed or installed as a unit.

 

A "set of points" might be part of a turnout, or it could be part of some other formation such as a slip.

 

it's called a "set of points" because there are two "points" or blades. They are called points because they are pointed.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Thanks - I tend to deal with them from an operating perspective, so yes, the crossing does tend to be fairly irrelevant.

[ejstubbs]

21 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I'm afraid not because the total angle of divergence of the Large Ys is also 12 degrees: -6 for one arm and +6 for the other.

 

Sorry, you're right.  Bit of brain fade on my part (just like brakes, if over-used the performance can degrade...)

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

On 06/08/2019 at 12:03, Mike Storey said:

Despite its US appearance, I am going to use Peco Code 83 for my indoor layout (when I ever get around to building it). I have trialled a crossover on my bit of test track and am convinced. The appearance of bogie stock traversing a B8 is far superior to anything in the Code 75 range, and, for me, makes up for the considerable efforts I will need to make to disguise it as UK track, as best I can.

 

I'm happy using code 83 to model CIE.  I'm trading the better geometry and flat bottom rail against the ridiculous narrow gauge, and it looks ok. The double slip is a #6, so significantly better than the code 75 or 100 versions which are much tighter radius.

 

The plain turnouts are good too - having a straight section in the diverging leg eliminates the worst of the reverse curve element you get with the code 75 and 100 ranges.

 

 

I could actually build this using the new EMGS track from Peco, and get somewhat closer to the correct gauge!

 

[Philou]

Regarding the centre-line spacing mentioned above, this was my effort using standard Peco medium radius points. The sleepers were split centrally and then carefully removed with the necessary length of rail from one side and repeated for the other point. This was set up for 45mm centres (identical to the club's trackwork as it was intended to be a matching module). A little more care on my part would have perhaps led to better matching of the cut sleepers. A little bit of over ballasting hid the join. Absolutely no issues regarding stock movements over the modifications nor any contact by stock movements from the sidings (including the over-long Class 800 coaches) with stock on the 'narrowed' main-line.

 

When doing my layout later this year, I shall take on board the comment made regarding the angled bearer and get rid of it too. I shall also give making my own pointwork a go to as I shall have a couple of very large radii crossings and points to create.

 

 

Pointwork with cut sleepers

 

 

Trackwork laid awaiting pinning and ballasting (take no note of the unprototypical layout - just using up some 45 year old trackwork - will do better next time).

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Sol]

3 hours ago, 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')

 

 

Peco call them turnouts.

[The Johnster]

I've also used Peco Streamline in a quest to get up and running quickly, then found it's ability to be used in conjunction with setrack in my fiddle yard very useful.  I'm considering relaying in bullhead code 75 for appearance reasons, but am concerned about fiddle yard compatibility and one aspect of appearance not yet mentioned.  Streamline has H0 sleeper spacing which, while incorrect for a UK outline layout, does give the appearance of greater lengths of track in a restricted space when you are looking at it from any perspective except side on, and the appearance of length is almost as important as it's actuality on a small layout such as my BLT.

 

My main grouse with Streamline and setrack is the lack of chairs.

[Jeff Smith]

Flat bottom rail does not have chairs, just clips or spikes.....

 

A simple BLT could be built using SMP plain BH track and 36" radius BH point kits.  These are incredibly easy to assemble, no gauges required, just thread the rail through plastic track bases.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Jeff Smith

[Gibbo675]

9 hours ago, 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')

Hi Nick,

 

The simple answer is because that is what they are called by the Permanent Way Institution.

 

Short but sweet !

 

Gibbo.

[The Johnster]

They were called turnouts, never points, when I worked on the railway in the 70s.  The other term, which was used for more or less any sort of junction, was ‘shunt’, but this may have been local to the WR.