Jump to content

melmerby

Mixing Code 83 & Code 75 track

Recommended Posts

Hi all

I use code 75 track and I have a place where I need a LH curved point, I have yhe code 75 one but the inside radius is far too sharp, being 30" (or less!)

The code 83 one looks more like the radii I want, it appears to be about 60" & 42".

Would it be diffficult to mix them,, is the 8 thou difference easily overcome?

Edited by melmerby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The peco code 83 #7 curved point isn't 42 inches on the internal radii, it's more like 30 inches. The outer is approx 60. I have been looking into these dimensions as a result of planning for my fiddleyard and using Anyrail extensively to figure out the best point geometry to use.

 

Edit: I've just put a line of curved #7 together in Anyrail and their outer curve works out at around 68 inches to cover a 90 degree turn, while the inner curve works out at about 30 inches for the same.

Edited by Ian J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the difference in height is a particular issue, although you would need to put some form of packing under the Code 75 track, but we're only talking about the thickness of a sheet of paper or maybe two.

 

Perhaps more important to highlight is that the sleeper spacing is different, with the sleepers on the Code 83 track closer together than the equivalent Code 75 / Code 100 product.  The photograph below shows a right hand Code 83 #7 beside a right hand Code 100 Curved Point as well as a left hand Code 100 Curved Point sitting on top of a left hand Code 83 #7, just to show the difference in the geometry.  I'm planning to use both types in my fiddle yard.

 

385690196_IMG_20191005_1558071.jpg.4e3bcc2ac25a73581ef86c3a0c18f10f.jpg

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some information I saw suggested the two radii were 1524mm & 1062mm, which equates to about 60" & 42" which clearly they aren't.

I could do with something with somewhat more than 36" for the inside radius.:scratchhead:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am using both curved turnouts on my new a-building Port Costa California layout as the Shinohara sharper radius curved turnouts are no longer easily available and was not too reliable and I need sharper curves in one or two locations.  Will just have to bury the code 75 turnout deeply in ballast over the ties (sleeper timbers in England) so not obviously apparent that it is not US prototype (not UK prototype either from what I understand).  New Walthers Code 83 replacement for Shinohara will be coming eventually. I doubt PECO will invest in a sharper radius US prototype curved turnout.  But then I was surprised they did a US double slip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not use Tillig curved turnouts ? yes they are European looking but no worse than Peco code 75/83 for UK layouts. 

I find that  my operating team could not care less how they look but how they work because most of the time they are not looking at the track but the trains and the shunting required.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, autocoach said:

I am using both curved turnouts on my new a-building Port Costa California layout as the Shinohara sharper radius curved turnouts are no longer easily available and was not too reliable and I need sharper curves in one or two locations.  Will just have to bury the code 75 turnout deeply in ballast over the ties (sleeper timbers in England) so not obviously apparent that it is not US prototype (not UK prototype either from what I understand).  New Walthers Code 83 replacement for Shinohara will be coming eventually. I doubt PECO will invest in a sharper radius US prototype curved turnout.  But then I was surprised they did a US double slip.

 

https://youtu.be/DRfwGnOqaew

 

and they are US Prototype.

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be able to mix and match Peco code 75 & 83 quite happily with regard to rail height and whether or not you care about the visual sleeper differences - I have done it myself and so did Calder Northern with their large US H0 layout (1 single short crossing, subsequently replaced, I think).

HOWEVER - you must only use RP-25 wheelsets through the code 83 trackwork otherwise you will get 'bumps' as wheels that are not RP-25 compatible will not fit. Older UK wheelsets and/or European NEM wheelsets are unsuitable as the gap through the 'Vee' is per American practice and built up to allow the flange of the RP-25 wheelset to run along it.

I have ground this built up material out with a cutting disk but it is quite risky!

John E.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sol said:

Why not use Tillig curved turnouts ?

They don't (AFAIK) do large radius curved points, worse than Peco.

e.g. 85374 is only 934mm + 543mm = 36" + 21"

 

Maybe Shinohara? They do a code 70 #8 that can be curved.

I wonder what that would be like?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keith , you are correct  re Tillig . my mistake.

 

Shinohara has basically vanished & Walthers hopes to get it going again. They do have their own curved turnout 24 & 28" radius so but Tillig can also be curved a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol said:

Keith , you are correct  re Tillig . my mistake.

 

Shinohara has basically vanished & Walthers hopes to get it going again. They do have their own curved turnout 24 & 28" radius so but Tillig can also be curved a bit.

I've actually got some Farish turnouts and they can be bent but it's code 100.

Looks like I'll have to try using a Peco large radius LH point and hope I can massage the track to fit the straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/11/2019 at 23:57, Allegheny1600 said:

You should be able to mix and match Peco code 75 & 83 quite happily with regard to rail height and whether or not you care about the visual sleeper differences - I have done it myself and so did Calder Northern with their large US H0 layout (1 single short crossing, subsequently replaced, I think).

HOWEVER - you must only use RP-25 wheelsets through the code 83 trackwork otherwise you will get 'bumps' as wheels that are not RP-25 compatible will not fit. Older UK wheelsets and/or European NEM wheelsets are unsuitable as the gap through the 'Vee' is per American practice and built up to allow the flange of the RP-25 wheelset to run along it.

I have ground this built up material out with a cutting disk but it is quite risky!

John E.

 

RP25 is a shape not a wheel width.  RP 25 wheel shapes exist in all the various smaller scales.

 

If PECO code 83 complies with the NMRA HO standard for track, which I suspect it does, then you need to use all NMRA code 110 width wheel sets. This allows them to cross the 0.050" frog flangeway width without dropping.  Any "build-up" in the bottom of the flange way is unnecessary, unless you are mistakenly using code 88 width wheel sets.

 

Andy  (formerly of the NMRA standards dept)

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

RP25 is a shape not a wheel width.  RP 25 wheel shapes exist in all the various smaller scales.

 

If PECO code 83 complies with the NMRA HO standard for track, which I suspect it does, then you need to use all NMRA code 110 width wheel sets. This allows them to cross the 0.050" frog flangeway width without dropping.  Any "build-up" in the bottom of the flange way is unnecessary, unless you are mistakenly using code 88 width wheel sets.

 

Andy  (formerly of the NMRA standards dept)

 

It's not the width, it's the depth of the flange on older UK wheels that can cause problems on the Code 83 crossing, if I understand the issue properly.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ian J. said:

 

It's not the width, it's the depth of the flange on older UK wheels that can cause problems on the Code 83 crossing, if I understand the issue properly.

Thanks, Ian!

That is exactly what I was trying to say. I didn't mention the width of the wheel at all so I cannot understand why that was introduced into the conversation.

Cheers,

John E.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's the issue - you mentioned RP25, but didn't state the width of the wheel and therefore the flange depth either.  RP25 is the contour profile and the flange depth is related to the wheel width.  Reference to RP25 doesn't define a flange depth on it's own.

 

If you look at https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/RP-25 2009.07.pdf  RP25.88 has a flange depth of 0.023", whereas RP25.110 has a flange depth of 0.025".  That said, I'd have thought that the issue with flanges hitting the infill piece in the common crossing would have been if the wheels had a flange depth greater than the RP25.110 standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dungrange said:

I think that's the issue - you mentioned RP25, but didn't state the width of the wheel and therefore the flange depth either.  RP25 is the contour profile and the flange depth is related to the wheel width.  Reference to RP25 doesn't define a flange depth on it's own.

 

If you look at https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/RP-25 2009.07.pdf  RP25.88 has a flange depth of 0.023", whereas RP25.110 has a flange depth of 0.025".  That said, I'd have thought that the issue with flanges hitting the infill piece in the common crossing would have been if the wheels had a flange depth greater than the RP25.110 standard.

 

Yes. Only minor point, RP 25 is only a Recommended Practice. So not doing it doesn't break the Standard. Code 110 width and flange depth are part of the  the HO Standard, so you must use them for full compliance - aka trouble free running.

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not use a Code 75 point and alter the geometry by cutting out some of the sleeper web and "straightening" the point?

 

Altered Peco track has been used effectively this way on "Grantham".

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, newbryford said:

Why not use a Code 75 point and alter the geometry by cutting out some of the sleeper web and "straightening" the point?

 

Altered Peco track has been used effectively this way on "Grantham".

 

 

 

 

I had considered that before I started looking elsewhere.

It now looks like a likely way forward, I'm even wondering about using a large LH point and curving that.

I've got a load of code 100 Insulfrogs I could practice on for fit.

Edited by melmerby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Dungrange said:

I think that's the issue - you mentioned RP25, but didn't state the width of the wheel and therefore the flange depth either.  RP25 is the contour profile and the flange depth is related to the wheel width.  Reference to RP25 doesn't define a flange depth on it's own.

 

If you look at https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/RP-25 2009.07.pdf  RP25.88 has a flange depth of 0.023", whereas RP25.110 has a flange depth of 0.025".  That said, I'd have thought that the issue with flanges hitting the infill piece in the common crossing would have been if the wheels had a flange depth greater than the RP25.110 standard.

Thanks, David!

Yes, I know all that - I didn't specify RP25-110 because the OP appears to be using British outline stock!

Well - I've never heard of any British outline stock being (factory) fitted with RP25-88 wheels - if there were, there'd be howls of protest at them dropping into the flangeways of regular Peco code 75 and code 100 points!

Cheers,

John.

 

PS Keith - if you look through my layout "Leberecht" build thread in the "German" section of the forum - you should be able to find where I have modified several Peco code 75 points thus. HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My brand new Hornby Gresley suburbans were just delivered with code 100 width wheels. What the reliable published "Standard" is for those I can't imagine. Fortunately, I was intending to replace the wheels anyway.

 

Andy

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.