what track?

[Helmdon]

Coming back into the hobby after 25 years away (and then it was a glorified double loop on a bit of 8x4 board).

 

I've settled on the GC London Extension in the 1950s, in OO, and will have some sensible space - potentially 7' or so from the overbridge to the platform end for example, and then a fiddle yard on the opposite side of the room - which will have to function as a sort of Woodford Halse by proxy, i.e. the sidings are going to be through rather than dead ends (a reason why I think analogue will be feasible).

 

Question, starting from scratch, and starting determinedly analogue (mind made up on that) what track would you be going for?

 

I'm buying the lot in one go and currently have none. Tempted by Peco, but don't really understand the differences between one box of yard lengths and the next. And not wedded to Peco, as I don't know enough about the current track scene (except enough to know I will not be building my own...!)

 

Looking at the price lists, cost doesn't come into it, although I remember from my youth that while second hand stock was ok, second hand track was a false economy. Cost doesn't come into because I'm not made of money, but I have got a fund for this because I've been thinking about it for a few years and putting a bit by regularly for the purpose.

 

So, anyone have any thoughts on what to go for?

[NIK]

Hi,

 

It depends  how much you want to match the tracks of your prototype and what the profile and back to backs is of all the wheels of the stock you intend to run.

 

Take care.

 

Nick

[Helmdon]

thanks - stock is a complete mixy blob. Locos mix of new and 2nd hand/10 yrs old, but the coaching stock goes from now back to Palitoy era mainline. So what's going to tolerate the biggest bag is probably key by the sounds of it.

[PMP]

What stock will you be running, and how old will it be (generally). If you’re aiming to buy contemporary release products you have the choice of finer scale looking track. If you have some legacy products of 20/30 years back then the Code 100 track types will probably be a better bet. A rough idea of the layout plan/better description will also help you get better targeted advice on the most suitable type of track to buy.

[PMP]

6 minutes ago, Helmdon said:

thanks - stock is a complete mixy blob. Locos mix of new and 2nd hand/10 yrs old, but the coaching stock goes from now back to Palitoy era mainline. So what's going to tolerate the biggest bag is probably key by the sounds of it.

Code 100 will be the best type then. Depending on your envisaged plan ‘set track’ may be suitable or a mix of that and Peco streamline. The widest choice for you will come from the Peco range. The Peco ‘set track’ and streamline ranges are compatible, and if working using set track Hornby would also fit without significant issues. 
An early consideration is how you want to power the track, DC/DCC, and how you want to actuate the pointwork. Peco products as a rule are easy to work with, they are all designed to be multiple use across their range, if you mix product ranges you’ll need to be more flexible in your build.

Edited April 30, 2020 by PMP

[DCB]

I am addicted to Peco code 100 but if starting again with new stock, post 2000 and with space for the minimum of 2ft radius  curves I would go for Peco code 75 for a UK style layout assuming I was  buying in the UK. 

The dark ages 1975-2000 Triang Hornby rolling stock with square axles and metal tyres won't even run properly on code 100, but you can fit later wheels if you need to.   I haven't come across any Lima which won't run on code 75 if you tweak the back to back, likewise Airfix and Palitoy/Mainline, in any case Bachmann metal wheels can usually be substituted.

The old Triang locos can have Romfords fitted to be code 75 compatible and Hornby Castle wheel tyres fit the old B12 / Hall wheel centres, not many people know that.

If you need sharper curves that 2ft then Code 100 makes sense as you can get set track curves around 19" and 22" radius to mix and match with code 100 streamline points.    

There is some real rubbish track on the market, I look on the sleeper base and if it doesn't say Peco I walk away, I bought 25 yards of "GT" track once. Nightmare.

[Pete the Elaner]

If you want something a little better looking than Peco code 100, but don't want finer standards, then you can always cut the webbing & space the sleepers out a little.

I think the improved appearance is well worth the effort, but it really is a matter of opinion.

[Helmdon]

thanks all, some food for thought 

[ikcdab]

I think you should start with the track,  not with the stock. Once the track is laid and ballasted, it is difficult to replace, whereas stock can be sold and new purchased. Not so easy to rip up the track.

Peco has the best range. Code 75 looks much better than code 100, but both have the sleepers too close together although thousands of people use it without worrying. The newer peco bullhead range looks really good and is also code 75. But go with peco of some sort.

[Il Grifone]

This thread has some comments on track in the middle of the discussion.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/154094-oo-and-ho-differences/

 

 

 

[Helmdon]

6 hours ago, ikcdab said:

I think you should start with the track,  not with the stock. Once the track is laid and ballasted, it is difficult to replace, whereas stock can be sold and new purchased. Not so easy to rip up the track.

Peco has the best range. Code 75 looks much better than code 100, but both have the sleepers too close together although thousands of people use it without worrying. The newer peco bullhead range looks really good and is also code 75. But go with peco of some sort.

 

I see that (now) but I've been buying the stock for a few years rather than the track (it's nicer to look at before you can do the layout frankly!). Aside from a Hornby B17 which is probably getting on a bit I've got a new D11/1, J11, and O4, and then blue box Bachmann - ie not new but relatively recent B1,K3,WD2-8-0 and Modified Hall. Agree with coaches/wagons you can flog them and start again but it seems a shame to disperse what is a reasonable (and paid for) assembly of pretty well all the engines I need (minus the A3, V2, L1, 9F and Brit that I still want).

 

Tempted to get a few bits of Code 75 and see if anything fouls.

 

In answer to someone's question upthread I've decided to go with DC over DCC. Partly for the challenge, and partly because for the layout I've got in mind, and a focus on scenery and "feel" over timetabling, I don't think it's worth the additional money for bells and whistles I won't buy.

[PMP]

5 hours ago, Helmdon said:

 

Tempted to get a few bits of Code 75 and see if anything fouls

Apart from the B17 everything on that list should be ok for Code75. The B17 may well work ok too, roughly how old is it? Code75 track and points were introduced mid to late 80’s if I recall, so there’s a good chance it’ll be ok if it’s around that era or after. Loco’s of that era often had large flanges on Pony truck and bogie wheelsets, these may be too coarse for CD75 and require changing if keeping the model.

[The Johnster]

For BR steam era London Extension GC the track choice has to be Peco code 75 bullhead for appearance.  Older rolling stock may well run on it; Mainline's wheel profiles weren't that bad, but I would in any case suggest replacing older wheelsets with more modern RTR all metal ones anyway, as plastic wheels are very sophisticated and advanced devices for the spreading of crud all over your layout.  The replacement wheels are 'drop in'; you simply force the old ones out and force the new ones in; they'll run freely on their pin point axles in the cone shaped bearings on the plastic bogies or underframes.  

 

I'd also suggest a replacement program for buffers, which will very much improve the appearance of your older stock, and if you intend retaining tension lock couplings, a similar program to replace with NEM spec.  The mounting blocks are available from Parkside and the correct height can be attained by packing or trimming them and combining them with either straight or cranked Bachmann NEM couplings.  Fitting these to coach bogies may need a bit more ingenuity and bodgery.  

 

I have also upgraded my older stock with new bogies or chassis; my standard is that all brake blocks must align with the wheels and all handbrake levers must be separate mouldings and not integral with the wagon chassis.  This started by using current production Bachmann wagon chassis from donor wagons, but this became too expensive and later upgrades use Parkside chassis kits which are not too pricey, easy to assemble, and will cover most of your needs..  A London Extension layout is going to need a good number of XPO 7-plank and 16ton steel mineral wagons for the Annesley Runners/Windcutters, and I would mention that Hornby's  and Dapol's minerals use those companies' generic 10' wheelbase wagon chassis and are thus incorrect for minerals, which ran on 9' chassis.  Stick to Bachmann and Oxford.  

 

Stock upgraded to those specs will run perfectly on code 75 bullhead.  Locos are a different beast, but yours should all run fine except for the B17 which may be a problem.  The thing is to try it out and if it clears the sleepers and runs through the flangways, happy days.  Otherwise it is down to how you feel about rewheeling, or building a chassis kit for it, or considering a replacement.

 

If you are considering buying s/h locos or stock from 'Bay, I would reject any model that does not have NEM couplings, an indication that it is getting on a bit and may give you running or reliability issues.  An NEM indicates relatively recent production to current standards, and you should be reasonably safe with a model that is fitted with them.  I mention this because RTR 9Fs and A3s have been around a long time and 'Bay sellers may try to pass off older models as current or more recent; I've seen Triang Hornby tender drive 9Fs described as Hornby!  An RTR loco, coach, or wagon factory fitted with NEM couplings will be more or less guaranteed to run on code 75 bullhead with no problems that cannot be sorted in seconds with a back to back gauge.

[ikks]

On 01/05/2020 at 03:47, DavidCBroad said:

"GT" track

What is "GT Track" please?

 

Mike

[Guest Half-full]

10 minutes ago, ikks said:

What is "GT Track" please?

 

Mike

Crap!

 

A cheap flexi (but not that much cheaper than Peco) that I found wouldn't hold the rails past a gentle curving!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Per those above, I too would suggest Peco's code 75 bullhead: but only for the scenic section for the superior appearance.

 

The rest of the layout in Peco code 75 f/b: more robust, easier to use than both bullhead and code 100, cheaper than the bullhead and fully compatible, no need to match railtop height where you go from one to the other.

 

Realistically, among what you have purchased already, and what is to come, the chance is some wheelsets (and possibly bogies and wagon chassis) will need replacement due to damage or faults anyway. Tackle this on a case by case basis once you have the track down, as already suggested.

 

There is a key item missing from RTR OO. Bachmann's mighty useful little GCR survey stalled before they got to the N5...

 

18 minutes ago, ikks said:

What is "GT Track" please?

A friend who tried it suggested Gross Turd.

[legin]

I am just a bit concerned at the predominance of people who are advocating code 75 over code 100 on the basis of how the track will look.

Most things will run on code 75 but not all. It depends on whether or not you value reliable running for all your stock over appearance. What you don't want is good looking track and rough running/derailments, because this is the frustrating and annoying part.

Changing loco wheelsets is easy for those who have done a lot of it but foreign to many others, unfortunately including me. If you are happy to invest the time and money, fair enough. Wheels on rolling stock should generally not be a problem unless as shown on a you tube video I have lost track of, it is old Triang, in which case, there is much fiddling about and rebushing if I can remember it correctly.

My track is all code 100, made up of Hornby setrack from the 1980s including some second radius points, some new Peco setrack, including points, and Peco flexitrack from the 80s. I have a number of locos from the 1980s, Mainline, Lima, Aifix and Hornby and items of rolling stock dating from the 60s to the 80s, including one or two Triang. All of them, without any modifications, will negotiate all parts of the track including all 22 points, mostly old Hornby, some of which have modified check rails. So I think it may be ease of use/ reliability versus appearance for you.

[ISW]

On 30/04/2020 at 19:17, DavidCBroad said:

*snip&

I haven't come across any Lima which won't run on code 75 if you tweak the back to back, 

*snip*

David,

 

Does that include the famous Lima 'pizza cutter' wheels of the early 1980s?

 

I'd really like to use Code 75 for my scenic areas, and I've too many pizza cutter wheels to contemplate replacing them. If they are compatible then great.

 

[PMP]

As mentioned two posts above and in my earlier thoughts Code100 is likely the be the most trouble free route for you. It allows you maximum flexibility to design and configure your track in the space you have. It is also the easiest to obtain, most shops will stock CD100, and far fewer CD75, fewer still CD75 bullhead. Without an idea of what you want to fit into your available space, trying to define which track system is best is full of potential issues.
 

I definitely wouldn’t suggest code75 bullhead yet for this project, despite using it myself and being a big fan of it.  At the moment only two points are available. With the older stock you have there’s the real possibility that the flanges may bump on the top of the inner rail, it used to happen with C&L flexitrack and their individual chairs. (See above comments re Lima) Wheel swapping isn’t the trouble free experience you’re being sold here either. Different manufacturers even today use differing axle lengths, even in their own ranges. To keep it simple and get you going effectively after your sabbatical CD100 offers you the easiest route.

Edited May 2, 2020 by PMP
moby auto spelling

[Harlequin]

My suggestion is to go for Peco Code 75 flat bottom, if you possibly can - for all the reasons given above. I wouldn't worry about re-spacing the sleepers for two reasons: 1. Life is too short and 2. It's not feasible to re-space the sleepers through the turnouts so you get inconsistency in spacing (although someone will now say they have done exactly that, of course).

 

Old locos with big flanges are a problem on Code 75 but it sounds like you don't have that many of them so maybe that's not such a big problem in practice. You can sell them on to recover part of the value and buy something new.

 

Old rolling stock is easy re-wheel (in my experience, anyway) and that does two good things: 1. Your can keep your old stock running on your new improved trackwork and 2. Older stock often used plastic wheels, which you can now replace with metal ones for improved running. New metal wheel sets are easy to obtain from all the usual places.

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Harlequin

[Guest Half-full]

Carefully ballasted and weathered Code 100 can look as good as code 75.  As is often the case, its not what you've got, its what you do with it.

 

 

[Andy Reichert]

just so the OP knows, the definition of rail code is the height of the rail itself from top to bottom in one thousandths of an inch.  What affects the ability to run certain older types of UK models with wheels with deeper flanges on commercial track, is the size and height of the plastic fixings holding the rail to the plastic sleepers, as used by particular manufacturers.

 

So the clearance (rail height- fixings height) for the bottom of the flanges is not a  published measurement and varies by manufacturer and often even by their product family. A manufacturer's product name that that includes a rail code doesn't necessarily relate to an amount of clearance, nor whether one is better of worse than another.

 

Hence all the earlier posts based on the posters practical experiences. Unfortunately it's part of the not very well standardised or controlled commercialization of UK 00 modelling.

 

Andy

[Helmdon]

thanks all, loads of good thoughts. 

 

I'm not sure if I've really got enough to go on for a layout thread of my own, but just as a bit of background.

 

With a pregnant wife we were just about to move house before the lock-down. Obviously that has now fallen through, but as soon as we're back to being allowed out we will be moving. Part of the deal is that I get a railway room, whether that's a barn, an attic, or whatever. But a decent sized one anyway - the other side of the deal is that I basically never ask for anything again and forfeit all rights in the decoration of any of the other rooms!

 

Anyway, what I've been buying for, and would have had in the house we would have moved to is roughly:

 

- a layout designed to show off stock and be quite scenic, probably of the "round the room" format, in a dedicated room. (16'x13'), although it will be different in the one we actually buy now). At it's most basic it's just two ovals round the room.

 

- one length a good representation (inc trackplan) of Helmdon for Sulgrave station on the GC London extension. Bachmann buildings (which aren't quite right for Helmdon but close enough) with a kitbashed bridge rather than the Bachmann one, and at least a 7 coach platform.

 

- door end??? but it's got to do access as well

 

- far end tunnel based on Catesby.

 

- going down the other side, and this is where I might be pushing it, a sort of exhibition fiddle yard - MPD and through sidings based on Woodford Halse. So although this is really storage, I want to (when I've nailed the station) detail it properly anyway.

 

DC control (Gaugemaster), yes to motorised points, no (at this stage for both financial and other priorities) to motorised signalling.

 

Not designed to be transported, and hopefully when we've moved once that's it, so sort of seeing it as a *very* long term project which I might work on for ever.

 

I like the idea of Code 75, but get the advantages as explained of Code 100. Having said that, if I went down the Code 75 bullhead route, I'd want to do everything including the fiddle yard in it as there's nothing off display. But, given the limited number of points available, and the lack of skill to get scratchbuilding them (as yet), it feels like Code 100 is the way to go....

 

But obviously at the moment it's all in a bit of a hiatus. In a tiny cottage don't have much space to do anything except stockpile for the moment!

Edited May 4, 2020 by Helmdon

[Harlequin]

42 minutes ago, Helmdon said:

I like the idea of Code 75, but get the advantages as explained of Code 100. Having said that, if I went down the Code 75 bullhead route, I'd want to do everything including the fiddle yard in it as there's nothing off display. But, given the limited number of points available, and the lack of skill to get scratchbuilding them (as yet), it feels like Code 100 is the way to go....

 

 

You may be confusing "Code 75 Bullhead" with "Code 75".

 

The Code 75 Bullhead range (green packaging) is limited to Large Radius left and right turnouts currently. Peco are advertising slips and crossings but we haven't yet seen them in shops or online.

 

The Code 75 range (yellow packaging) has all the same parts as Code 100, with a few small variations.

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Harlequin