Peco Track Sleeper spacing

[Trainnoob]

I have a basic trackmat layout but I eventually want to move on to something larger using peco Flex track, after watching Everard junction videos its made me want to increase the spacing of sleepers. 

 

However as a total newbie to flex track i am really nervous to Modify shiny brand new flexitrack as im scared i break it, what is the best way and least risky way of sleeper spacing for someone new to this. 

[Bomag]

It depends on the flexitrack you are using; Peco code 55 requires a different technique than code 80. Similarly you need to take into account that on the real railway the sleeper spacing varies depending on the nature of the track - with between 20 and 28 sleepers per chain (22 yards/20m).  

[Trainnoob]

14 minutes ago, Bomag said:

It depends on the flexitrack you are using; Peco code 55 requires a different technique than code 80. Similarly you need to take into account that on the real railway the sleeper spacing varies depending on the nature of the track - with between 20 and 28 sleepers per chain (22 yards/20m).  

Im not using N gauge, im using 00.

[brossard]

My advice is to leave the track alone.  It is what it is.  I have played around with trying to respace sleepers, so has my friend.  Our concensus is that it is more trouble than it's worth.  I am also told that the sleeper width scales to 8", should be 10".  This is because Peco code 100 and code 75 FB are intended for the H0 market which is large in Europe and the US.  The track is scaled for 3.5mm/ft instead of 4mm/ft.  Most of us just live with it, muttering under our breath.

 

If you really want correct sleeper spacing you can go for SMP from Marcway, C&L or Peco Bullhead (did I forget anyone?).  These are all code 75.

 

This is your first layout so you want to be focusing on basics I think.

 

John

[Ben Alder]

Its been gone over many times - do a google search with rmweb and Peco sleeper spacing and you will find links aplenty. Here is one. Peco now do an 00 bullhead track with correct sleepers and spacings which may be easier but it is in Code 75.

 

[RJS1977]

Sleeper spacing is very much a matter of taste in 00, as the incorrect track gauge means you will always have something out of scale/proportion somewhere. Personally, I'm happy with the normal 'H0' sleeper spacing as it's proportional to the track gauge (and also makes the layout look longer!) but I know others disagree.

 

Whilst it is possible to cut and space out the sleepers (I tried it once to 'convert' N gauge track to 009), there is a reasonable amount of work involved, and on curves it can affect the integrity of the track.

 

If you want 4mm scale sleeper spacing, and can afford it, Peco now make 'scale' track with the 'correct' sleeper spacing (though this is now disproportionate to the track gauge).

[Robert Stokes]

Why not buy the relatively new code 75 bullhead track which has wider sleeper spacing than the code 75 flat bottomed or the code 100. Admittedly it is more expensive which could put you off it. Also at this time there are only large radius points to go with it but medium radius ones and slips are in the pipeline.

[Trainnoob]

3 hours ago, brossard said:

My advice is to leave the track alone.  It is what it is.  I have played around with trying to respace sleepers, so has my friend.  Our concensus is that it is more trouble than it's worth.  I am also told that the sleeper width scales to 8", should be 10".  This is because Peco code 100 and code 75 FB are intended for the H0 market which is large in Europe and the US.  The track is scaled for 3.5mm/ft instead of 4mm/ft.  Most of us just live with it, muttering under our breath.

 

If you really want correct sleeper spacing you can go for SMP from Marcway, C&L or Peco Bullhead (did I forget anyone?).  These are all code 75.

 

This is your first layout so you want to be focusing on basics I think.

 

John

Ok i believe i will do this. 

 

 

[ITG]

As a relative new modeller of just 3 years or so, although I have no experience of adjusting sleeper spacing, I do have recent experience of the myriad of other things there is to focus on when building a layout…….. things one needs to get pretty close to right, if you are to enjoy trouble free running and maximise a positive experience. Not sure of what your other commitments are, but as a newly retired person with a reasonable budget, I was able to devote time and resources to modelling. But even then, I’d say one has to prioritise if you don’t want to risk time running away with you.

l’ve noted you’ve asked a few different questions via various threads. Well done for identifying so many things there are to consider, but sooner or later we all need to prioritise. 
By no means am I saying “don’t respace sleepers”, but I am saying do decide what is essential, what is important, what is nice to have, and what you’re trying to avoid……. Before you start spending time and money!

[ejstubbs]

6 minutes ago, ITG said:

I am saying do decide what is essential, what is important, what is nice to have, and what you’re trying to avoid…….

 

Sometimes described as the "MoSCoW" rule: Must, Should, Could & Won't.

 

(As opposed to "Moscow rules," which the late Mr Le Carré was fond of mentioning in his spy novels.)

[Bomag]

4 hours ago, Trainnoob said:

Im not using N gauge, im using 00.

 

It would have helped if you mentioned scale/gauge.

[Hibelroad]

Wasn’t there a time when Peco advertised their track as having a “fine scale longer longer look”, i.e they were saying that more sleepers make the track appear longer. A case of making a virtue out of necessity. 

[ikcdab]

5 hours ago, Trainnoob said:

However as a total newbie to flex track i am really nervous to Modify shiny brand new flexitrack as im scared i break it, what is the best way and least risky way of sleeper spacing for someone new to this. 

Obviously I don't know what your budget is, but a length of Flexi is around £5. Even if you totally ruin it, it won't break the bank and could be a useful learning experience. Less than a pint of beer!

[MR Chuffer]

1 minute ago, ikcdab said:

Less than a pint of beer!

Crikey, where do you buy your beer? So as I don't go there. Currently drinking exotic 5% IPAs (from Yorkshire principally) at £3.20 a pint. Drinking some Blackjack West Coast Pale at 5.7% for only £3 this afternoon, scrumptious....

[philsandy]

Yes, Peco 00 track is actually HO track. But even at 3.5mm/1ft the sleepers are still too close together.

The new Peco Bullhead track is a vast improvement.

[brossard]

1 hour ago, ITG said:

As a relative new modeller of just 3 years or so, although I have no experience of adjusting sleeper spacing, I do have recent experience of the myriad of other things there is to focus on when building a layout…….. things one needs to get pretty close to right, if you are to enjoy trouble free running and maximise a positive experience. Not sure of what your other commitments are, but as a newly retired person with a reasonable budget, I was able to devote time and resources to modelling. But even then, I’d say one has to prioritise if you don’t want to risk time running away with you.

l’ve noted you’ve asked a few different questions via various threads. Well done for identifying so many things there are to consider, but sooner or later we all need to prioritise. 
By no means am I saying “don’t respace sleepers”, but I am saying do decide what is essential, what is important, what is nice to have, and what you’re trying to avoid……. Before you start spending time and money!

 

Very wise words IMO.  For someone who is building a layout single handed, it is very important to prioritize.  There are such a lot of jobs to do, it can seem overwhelming.  Board building, underlay, track choice, DC or DCC, buildings and on it goes.

 

All good fun.

 

John

[Derekl]

It is obviously up to you how you go about it, but having laid a fair bit of track (Peco and others) over the years, my inclination would be to avoid things like cutting the webs to alter sleeper distance (desirable though it might be). It is difficult enough to get track laid sufficiently level and with the smooth linear approach necessary for reliable running without messing with the overall geometry. I haven't tried it, but my guess is that it would be a nightmare on curves of any lower radius (like 36" or less).

I have noticed that Code 75 (flat bottom) seems to be easier to lay than Code 100.

[Londontram]

If you have cut the web's between the sleepers I believe those wooden coffee stirring sticks give about the right gap so every time I take the kids to a fast food burger place or get a coffee I grab a handfull of them. When cut in half you have enough to do a substantial length of track in one go and you can see if the sleepers are straight and in line before your favored method of fixing sets.

[Il Grifone]

Streamline was originally  designed in the sixties for the North American market and thus is H0 scale with sleepers much closer together than British standard and used code 100 rail and wide flangeways to pass as 'Universal' for the British market. Cutting the webs (better removing them altogether) allows a more realistic spacing, but unfortunately the sleepers remain too small.

 

My personal solution for British track is to use Farish Formoway of which I have stocks, but they are drying up as manufacture of this ceased in the seventies. This also needs the webs to be cut as the sleepers are still too close together. Laying scale rail lengths (GWR 44' 6" in my case) require this to vary as the sleepers are closer together at the joints. (Here I am talking about steam days as welded rail doesn't have joints of course and usually uses concrete sleepers.)

 

My suggestion is to try a section; it doesn't even have to be a full yard. Normally the gap is two sleeper widths (10" sleepers at 30" spacing - wider on sidings). The underscale sleepers do tend to spoil the effect however especially on pointwork which normally uses 12" timbering, something of which most manufactures seem to be unaware.

 

A personal hate is 00 stock running on H0 track. Even with no trains running, it's still out of scale with its surroundings, which is particularly obvious in stations. The gauge is incorrect, but using 32mm sleepers rather than 34mm mitigates the effect. (ignore this if modelling the pre-grouping era.

 

 

[kevinlms]

7 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

Streamline was originally  designed in the sixties for the North American market and thus is H0 scale with sleepers much closer together than British standard and used code 100 rail and wide flangeways to pass as 'Universal' for the British market. Cutting the webs (better removing them altogether) allows a more realistic spacing, but unfortunately the sleepers remain too small.

 

My personal solution for British track is to use Farish Formoway of which I have stocks, but they are drying up as manufacture of this ceased in the seventies. This also needs the webs to be cut as the sleepers are still too close together. Laying scale rail lengths (GWR 44' 6" in my case) require this to vary as the sleepers are closer together at the joints. (Here I am talking about steam days as welded rail doesn't have joints of course and usually uses concrete sleepers.)

 

My suggestion is to try a section; it doesn't even have to be a full yard. Normally the gap is two sleeper widths (10" sleepers at 30" spacing - wider on sidings). The underscale sleepers do tend to spoil the effect however especially on pointwork which normally uses 12" timbering, something of which most manufactures seem to be unaware.

 

A personal hate is 00 stock running on H0 track. Even with no trains running, it's still out of scale with its surroundings, which is particularly obvious in stations. The gauge is incorrect, but using 32mm sleepers rather than 34mm mitigates the effect. (ignore this if modelling the pre-grouping era.

 

 

Are you sure that Peco really made track purely for the USA market? It sounds like an urban myth to me.

The actual British market must be far larger than it ever was for the US one.

Doesn't make the track to scale, but I suspect the 'longer look' statement is actually correct. 

[Il Grifone]

It might be an urban myth, but I can't think of any other reason for making your main product in the wrong scale and with incorrect sleeper spacing. Their track from the fifties was definitely 00 and looked very good (pity about the fibre sleepers!). The 'longer look' myth* is on a par with Wrenn's "Scaled to match the rail" which, seeing their rail was to 7mm scale, tells you all about the result.

 

* Perhaps it's just me, but I consider it just looks undersized (or at least the sleepers do - the rail looks like American 'high iron', but that's the price to pay when rolling stock has overscale flanges.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Il Grifone

[Pete the Elaner]

DOGA also make sleeper re-spacing templates, with a choice of spacings more modern main lines seem to have sleepers closer together than older branch lines, but both are further apart than with Peco Streamline.

 

http://www.doubleogauge.com/shop.htm

 

While I agree with the comments about Peco's bullhead looking good, new track from the 70s onwards has been flatbottom laid on concrete sleepers. I don't know why so many people assume you are modelling steam.

 

The DOGA gauges also act as 6' way gauges on the straight, as long as you don't mind the sleepers being tidily aligned with each other on adjacent tracks. They also provide a choice of Peco's streamline 6' way or a more accurate, narrower 6' way, but this option can be problematic around curves (but looks great on an end-to-end layout).

 

It has already been mentioned that cutting the webbing weakens the track. For this reason, I recommend gluing the track rather than pinning.

 

It took me about 45 minutes to prepare & lay each yard of track, rather than about 3-4 minutes than just glue an unmodified length. For some, that is too much hassle.

 

A lot to think about there.

I'll leave you with a photo of what it looks like when done. The top track is unmodified. The left of the bottom 2 are with 9.5mm between sleeper centres & on the right, 8.5mm between sleeper centres. The bottom 2 tracks use the narrowed 6' way too. Doesn't look much different on this small test piece, but it does over a longer length with trains running.

 

 

[Pete the Elaner]

4 minutes ago, Il Grifone said:

It might be an urban myth, but I can't think of any other reason for making your main product in the wrong scale and with incorrect sleeper spacing. Their track from the fifties was definitely 00 and looked very good (pity about the fibre sleepers!). The 'longer look' myth* is on a par with Wrenn's "Scaled to match the rail" which, seeing their rail was to 7mm scale, tells you all about the result.

 

* Perhaps it's just me, but I consider it just looks undersized (or at least the sleepers do - the rail looks like American 'high iron'.

 

I agree that the sleepers are undersized, but so is OO gauge.

OO is just over 2mm too narrow, which makes correct length sleepers look too long (other things too).

[Il Grifone]

It certainly looks better with the wider spacing.

Strictly, steam era track was laid in short lengths* with sleepers closer together at the joints..

 

How short depended on the administration and the period bearing in mind that branch lines and sidings were relaid more infrequently and often got recycled main line track.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Il Grifone

[D-A-T]

I used this jig with great success before changing gauge and hand building my track.

http://www.phd-design-etchings.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=130

I really believe that increased sleeper spacing vastly improves the look of the track.

Then follow AY of this Parish advice in weathering and ballasting etc.