Jump to content
 

Improving Peco Code 75


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Ref item 5 above, I've attached a couple of pictures showing the modified point installed on a test track. (The modified point is nearest the camera, the other one is standard PECO). One problem was the use of a code 100 point (it happened to be available at the time), code 75 would fit better with the other plain trackwork.

Agree that it's useful as a starting point in modyfing/building trackwork as it's (almost) foolproof but scratchbuilding still produces much better reults.

 

Mike - it looks like you've re-instated all the rail fixings on your modified point - how did you go about that? Also, could i ask how you dealt with the tie-bar?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

It's the same track gauge.

 

This username isn't given to verbosity.

 

Modelling 3ft-gauge in 5.5mm scale is also the same gauge, but nobody would pretend it has any relevance to making OO track look more realistic. If you think 'Peco Code 75' implies HO scale, you are probably in a minority of one.

 

And usernames do nothing. *users* write things, and some of them give every impression of trolling ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike - it looks like you've re-instated all the rail fixings on your modified point - how did you go about that? Also, could i ask how you dealt with the tie-bar?

 

After soldering the rails to the copper clad sleepers I then used PECO Individualay Pandrol Clips cut in half and glued to either side. A bit fiddly but it did improve the look though I accept they are not exactly true to scale etc.

The tie bar was replaced with a cut down piece of copper clad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too had always accepted the common wisdom that Peco sleeper spacing was far too close but in HO it's far more accurate than I'd thought.

 

According to Network Rail, sleeper spacing on rural branches and freight only lines can be 650cm and 700 cm respectively but on main lines the standard sleeper spacing is 60cm. That 60cms is also the norm in Europe and elsewhere (Indian broad gauge for example) and when I actually checked some Peco plain track with an HO scale rule I found that the spacing came to 59cms which is less than 2% out. I also checked against the standard wooden sleeper size of 2.6m x 0.25m x0.15m (that seems to be the same in the UK and France and probably elsewhere as well) and the sleepers were pretty well spot on for length and width though a bit over for depth. Sleeper spacings were though generally wider in earlier epochs.

 

I've never quite understood how this works in 00 (I model in HO) because if you scale sleeper dimensions and spacing accurately to 1:76 than the gauge will be visibly narrow but if you simply adopt the 1:87 scale that the gauge of 16.5mm represents then the trackwork alone will look fine but underscale when placed against rolling stock or other structures.

 

Yes, I see this last point. So a side (ish) view of a rake of stock on SMP track will look best, but without trains, a view of the track alone in Peco or Tillig looks better, because SMP looks narrow gauge, which it is, 4' 1.5".

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
on main lines the standard sleeper spacing is 60cm.

That's fine for modern concrete-sleeper CWR track, but for wooden sleepers it's too close.

 

Here is the data for traditional jointed track with wooden sleepers:

 

2_080749_470000000.png

(full-size image: http://85a.co.uk/for...9_470000000.png )

 

Straight track: 24 sleepers per 60ft length corresponds to an average spacing of 30" (762mm, 76.2cm)

 

Sharp curves: 26 sleepers per 60ft length corresponds to an average spacing of 27.7" (703mm, 70.3cm)

 

CWR: 28 sleepers per 60ft length corresponds to an average spacing of 25.7" (653mm, 65.3cm)

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • RMweb Gold

Ref item 5 above, I've attached a couple of pictures showing the modified point installed on a test track. (The modified point is nearest the camera, the other one is standard PECO). One problem was the use of a code 100 point (it happened to be available at the time), code 75 would fit better with the other plain trackwork.

Agree that it's useful as a starting point in modyfing/building trackwork as it's (almost) foolproof but scratchbuilding still produces much better reults.

A while since I looked at this having gone into a mixture of N and 2mm finescale on space grounds. If I was still in 4mm I think I would be happy to go for that- even with the difference in railheights you do (or did) sometimes see this on the real railway.

 

-though I did enjoy EM modelling I think that there is a fair amount of time and frustration that can be saved by these methods, and I can see how that although scratchbuilding a point would get a better result these methods are worthy if time/skill etc is a problem. I know how much time I wasted on non-performing pointbuilds and supposedly easy wheel conversions which could have been spent doing something far less frustrating!

 

Pretty sure that if the current RTR track wasn't so awful there would be many 'fence sitters' who would quite happily stick with OO on hassle saving grounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I reckon this topic should be a sticky,

 

I've got to the point where I can't deny my peco code 100 looks, well, 'rubbish'. I don't want to go peco code 75 because there are still issues with the look. I am impressed with the track on newhaven and may follow that route.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I'd much appreciate some urgent advice on how to extricate myself from a difficulty I've got with my current ballasting efforts.

 

Having yesterday applied the 2:1 Klear/IPA solution,using the method described in this article,I today started to clean the railheads with IPA. As I did so,some small areas of the ballast (mainly on the shoulders) have crumbled away. I thought I had given it plenty, but I'm beginning to suspect that I might not have been liberal enough with the Klear/IPA.

 

Is it possible to apply some more at this stage,or is that difficult to do successfully now that the original application has set? If not,is it likely an application of the final matt spray varnish (as recommended here) would give the ballasting the added integrity that it seems to need?

 

Help,please!

 

DR

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Related questions periodically crop up on sleeper spacing, rail and sleeper painting in addition to ballasting. At a couple of recent demos I was playing with a short plank and talking folk through some of the materials used. I thought it may be a useful reference point for future questions.

 

post-1-002021000 1286710439_thumb.jpg

 

Peco track is the staple diet of modellers moving on from train set track. A basic limitation of the prototypical accuracy of the track is obviously the fact that it is OO gauge and any acceptance of it as it comes or to what it can be altered to is always a question of compromise. Improvements can be made that take the basic product beyond the common lay and ballast approach.

 

The first step is to turn the track over and cut away the plastic webbing between all of the sleepers. A sharp craft knife will suffice but don't go too heavy handed as too much pressure will cause the sleeper to to spring away where the narrow clasp of the rails chairs grip the base of the rail.

 

The sleeper spacing is then widened to a more acceptable compromise of around 7.5mm; PH Designs produce a useful tool if you have a lot of track to do - http://www.phd-desig...spacingtool.htm. The whole length of track to be used has the sleeper web cut away and spaced using the tool.

 

I fix the track using latex based adhesive (e.g. Copydex) or a thin line of PVA glue beneath each sleeper. The track is then laid and positioned. It will be necessary to use the sleeper spacing tool to tidy up any movement in the individual sleepers which will inevitably happen during handling, gluing and laying.

 

This makes a significant difference to the appearance making the track look lighter weight.

 

post-1-055762200 1286710453_thumb.jpg

 

Once the track is laid and tidied I use Tan Plasikote Suede Touch spray paint to give a base coat onto the plastic sleepers and nickel silver rails.

 

post-1-056406500 1286710446_thumb.jpg

 

 

Once the base coat has dried I then paint each sleeper with a mix of acrylic paints; in this case a mix of Tamiya Flat Earth (XF-52), Buff (XF-57) and Light Grey (XF-66). Before steaming ahead in painting the sleepers take some photos showing the actual track you wish to model; you should ideally do this in different weathers and observe the difference in appearance in dry sunny, cloudy and wet weather conditions. The colour that you then choose will at least have some foundation in fact rather than just a guesstimate and it will then be appropriate to the area and conditions you are modelling. In this case the sleepers are intended to look dry and sun-bleached with some time having passed since any treatment was used.

 

The same research criteria is relevant to the colour of the rail sides and chairs. The colour will vary with traffic types and volumes and the ambient light. A little used track in sunny conditions will look rusty orange whereas a busy track seen in dreary light on a wet day may look a very dark grey. In this case I use a mix of Tamiya acrylics Nato Brown (XF-68) and Nato Black (XF-69) to taste and with tones varying slightly on different lengths of rail.

 

post-1-002088500 1286710479_thumb.jpg

 

 

Once the final colours have dried and all of the track is laid it's time to consider ballasting. Rewinding to the research really look at the type of ballast that's there. The chances are the actual chippings will be smaller than the size of most of the ballast sold. If the grains in your model ballast are over 1mm in length that means each stone would be 3". Were they really that big. The easy solution is to then use finer ballast intended for the 2mm modeller. Rewind again and look at the colour of the real ballast. Is it uniform in colour? What colour is it? Take care to select something that looks right for your model.

 

In this case I've used Green Scenes GS408 ballast which has fine grains (intended for 2mm) and a nice variation in colours (light grey in this case).

 

There are tools that make the job of laying ballast quickly easier but I find something very therapeutic in laying the ballast. I like it to sit a little below the level of the sleeper and rail to preserve the lightness obtained earlier on with the removal of the sleeper webbing.

 

Along the side of the laid track I'll lay some masking tape to achieve a tidy straight line at the edge or cess. The ballast is gently spread between the sleepers with a brush and tamped down with a fingertip. Ballast is laid along the edge of the track and gently brushed into the spaces between the sleeper ends. Running a fingertip over the sleeper ends moves loose ballast grains into position forming a gentle slope down to the edge of the masking tape. Run your finger along the masking tape to remove loose ballast and tidy the edge.

 

The loose ballast is then fixed in place with a 2:1 mix of Johnson's Klear or Pledge floor wax and isopropyl alcohol (IPA) with a few drops of detergent. This is the new formulation which is readily available at supermarkets (I keep the old Klear for other varnishing!).

 

post-1-060642800 1286712935_thumb.jpg

 

 

The mixture is then sprayed on with a cheap plastic bottle spray or perfume atomoizer, these are available from Boots for £1.65. Give the ballast a good soaking so the varnish can penetrate and adhere to the ballast garnules through to the board.

 

post-1-080505200 1286713124_thumb.jpg

 

 

As this product is intended to form a shiny coat on hard floors there will be a sheen on the track which can be dulled down with a matt spray varnish.

 

post-1-002842100 1286710491_thumb.jpg

 

 

Once the ballast has set (normally overnight) I remove the paint on the top surface of the rail with a fine razor blade, the paint peels away leaving the clean rail head behind. It's worth checking that no ballast granules have moved and stuck to the sides of the rails; they wouldn't stick there in the real world so we'll try to make sure that reflected.

 

The cess at the side of the track in this case is treated with a painting of Tamiya acrylic Flat earth (XF-52) with a sprinkling of Treemendus Earth Powder on top.

 

The end product looks better for the time and attention given to it. This article isn't intended to be prescriptive but to get modellers at a certain stage to think a little more about the track appearance.

 

post-1-059916500 1286710432_thumb.jpg

 

This post has been promoted to an article

 

Hi Andy :)

 

Great article mate ....... I am presently about to start laying my first trackwork (code 75) on Riverside Cement, and am seriously thinking about trying this sleeper spacing method out.

 

It does improve the appearance of the track considerably in my opinion ...... I always thought the sleepers looked too close together on Peco track, so I'm going to have a practice go at this, off the layout, and if I like the look of the end result, might incorporate it into the layouts trackwork.

 

I'm relatively new to Railway Modelling, and this will be the first track I have laid, but I'll give it a try anyhoo ...... let you know how it turns out.

 

Cheers !!

 

Simon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi again Andy :)

 

I've had a go at the sleeper spacing mods you describe in here, and am well chuffed with the end result !! ....... for my first go at laying trackwork (albeit on a practice plank) I like the way its turned out.

 

It does look much improved over the stock track, and I'm now going to use this method on the trackwork on my first layout.

 

Here's a photo of the track pinned down prior to glueing ........

 

 

post-3897-0-31511800-1341261321.jpg

 

 

And a close up showing the stock track at the side of the modified ....... the difference is quite clear !!

 

 

post-3897-0-51879600-1341261395.jpg

 

 

Shameless plug I know !! ............ but if anyones interested, you can see how (as a novice to laying trackwork) I got on in more detail, in my layout thread - Riverside Cement. (post 109)

 

http://www.rmweb.co....t/page__st__100

 

 

Thanks for a great thread Andy ........ very informative indeed ........ I'm glad I found it before starting to lay the trackwork !!

 

Cheers.

 

Simon. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't take my word for it Simon, but I think you may have overdone the spacing a bit. How far apart are the sleepers? I'm certainly not criticising the idea... I'm just as enthusiastic... but I wouldn't want you to 'forge ahead' and then find the spacing was too wide. I may be wrong, but I think Andy's 7.5mm is the distance between the centres of the sleepers not the distance between the sleepers themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
I think Andy's 7.5mm is the distance between the centres of the sleepers not the distance between the sleepers themselves.

 

Hi Alan,

 

Simon has it about right.

 

For jointed track with timber sleepers, the average centre-to-centre dimension should be between 9.2mm and 10mm, depending on the curve radius and site conditions (26, 25, or 24 sleepers per 60ft length).

 

The timbers should be 3.3mm wide, so that means the average gap between them should be between 5.9mm and 6.7mm. However, the Peco timbers are too narrow, so 7.5mm for the gaps between them is probably about right.

 

These figures are averages, because the actual spacings vary along the rail length, like this:

 

2_080749_470000000.png

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had another look at Andy's original photos... and sure enough the space between the sleepers is less than 2 sleeper widths, which means less than 6mm... and probably near to 5mm, but could even be a tad less than that... to give the centre to centre spacing of 7.5mm. OO gauge (and peco track) are funny old things, full of compromises and approximations... but, for me, a 5mm space between the sleepers looks about right. Perhaps Andy might confirm the measurements he used... when he's back on track after the Stafford doooo.

 

Just checked some C&L track, and the sleepers, which are marginally wider than peco's, are spaced at less than 9mm centres.

 

Hope this helps

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi Alan,

 

The prototype dimensions at 24 per length are 30" centres with 10" wide sleepers. So that means the gaps between them are 20", i.e. exactly 2 sleeper widths.

 

If you have correct-width sleepers, you can set the spacings by pushing sleepers close together and then leaving only every 3rd one.

 

Unfortunately the Peco sleepers are too narrow. Which means you can have them at the correct centre-to-centre spacing, or with the correct gaps between them, but not both at the same time.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did indeed use 7.5mm as a centre-to-centre measurement but I accept it's incorrect although it looks right.

 

As the width and length of the sleepers are wrong combined with an incorrect gauge replicating a correct measurement looks wrong so it's more about proportions than accuracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Martin,

 

Just thinking about sleeper spacing does my head in (sometimes!)... but what I suppose I'm saying is that, for me, the spacing Andy has employed is the one I prefer and shall be using... as opposed to the wider spacing that Simon has used. Could be a personal thing, I don't know, but I can remember quite a discussion on the subject, and after reading it I reached the decision to go for 5mm. Here's a pic of my little trial. (take no notice of the ballast... I know it's a wee bit 'overscale')

 

post-11262-0-26707100-1341446110_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi Alan,

 

That looks very good.

 

The problem is that if you proportion the whole track to match the reduced gauge, it looks fine by itself. But when you place 4mm scale rolling stock on it, it looks under-scale. A 9ft-wheelbase wagon should have only 3 or 4 full sleepers between its wheels on traditional jointed track.

 

But given that the Peco sleepers are too short and too narrow, there isn't really a proper solution. That's still a lot better than raw Peco track.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This must be the umpteenth time that PECO code 75 track and it’s deficiencies in appearance topic has surfaced on this forum. I admire the dedication and effort people make to improve RTR products but when there are superior ready made alternatives, in this case SMP Scaleway and C&L flexible track, it seems odd to me.

 

Many previous posts have demonstrated that SMP/C&L flexible track with PECO code 75 points can produce a far more pleasing (00) effect and it would make more sense to me to spend any track modification effort on altering the sleeper spacing on the PECO code 75 points (a technique already described on this forum)

 

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
there are superior ready made alternatives, in this case SMP Scaleway and C&L flexible track

 

Hi Ian,

 

Those are bullhead tracks. Modellers modifying Peco track are attempting to model jointed flat-bottom track. Many running lines were relaid with that in the 1950s and 60s.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting, Coach.

I was the opposite. When I was very young I was taken train-spotting by my elder brother (dragged more like it, he was 7 years older than me and didn't want me around).

Thing is I was fascinated by the geometry of the trackwork at the amazing "throat" of Liverpool Street station. He later told me that I would gaze at it "for hours". What I was doing was considering the different permutations of the routes it was designed for. Then at home I would scribble trackwork (hardly) designs on scrap pieces of paper. Of course, I use terms now that I'd never heard of then....

 

This must have been at the turn of the Fifties into the Sixties when I was about 9 years old.

 

Best, Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...