Tillig v Peco

[Calimero]

Having built my baseboards and got my track plan sorted I'm ready to acquire my track and start laying. I orginally planned to go with Peco Code 75 however reading some magazines, posts on here and other sites I notice that there seems to be a growing popularity for Tillig track.

 

What's the best Peco or Tillig, should I change to Tillig?

 

I looked on some web sites and I notice that the Tillig slips are either inside or outside slips, not sure what that means, Pecos are just slips.

 

Thanks

[Allegheny1600]

Hi there,

The first question is - what models will you run? British, German or American?

If British, will it be all the latest spec Hornby, Bachmann etc? (Basically anything from "DCC Ready" days forward!).

If older spec British, earlier Hornby, Lima, Airfix, Tri-ang even - go for Peco code 100, tri-ang may still struggle on that!

If better quality, latest spec British - go for Peco code 75 or handbuild for best quality.

If American, go for Peco code 83.

If German/European AND you are quite experienced with laying track or track building, try Tillig. I would not reccomend Tillig unless you are a capable/experienced modeller as it is very "fine" and certainly quite delicate whereas Peco is much more robust.

Tillig was tried on a layout at my old club and some of the members there were rather "ham fisted" and made quite a mess of the track!

Cheers,

John E.

[muddys-blues]

I use Tillig track on my scenic sections, from a personal opinion the I think the points are better looking than Peco, if you wish to save money stick Peco track in the fiddle yards.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Forgetting the whole 00 16.5mmm gauge thing.......

 

To start with, Peco track (either code 75 or 100) is not prototypical for a British layout.

I'm told it's also not prototypical for anywhere in particular either.

 

Apart from being H0 in appearance rather than 00, it bears no resemblance to real UK rails.

However with a certain amount of work and care, it can be made to look pretty decent.

 

Tillig track is also not prototypical for British track, but I'm led to believe it has a generic resemblance to certain German track.

Again like Peco, it's H0 in appearance.

It's code 83 which is closer to scale for UK mainline rails than code 75 (note that certain handmade track rail is code 82).

Like Peco, Tillig can be made to look very decent, but it has several advantages over the more familiar Peco range.

 

 

Tillig.....

 

.....comes "pre-weathered" and therefore lacks that unrealistic shininess. Although no substitute for proper weathering, it's a much better foundation to work on.

Also if weathered, the unpainted contact area at the top of the rails won't look so odd with the underlying dullness, especially on prototypically lesser used parts of a track plan.

 

....unlike Peco, doesn't have the "train-set" spring mechanism for latching points. With Peco, many choose to cut this "lump" off as it detracts from the appearance of points.

As a result, it needs point motors or switch machines with latching, or stall type slow motion motors, to hold the point blades firmly in place against the stock rails.

 

....doesn't have the unsightly hinge in the switch blades, using a flexible blade instead, resulting in a better look and eliminating another potential "failure" place.

 

.....has a larger range of points and crossings. Some of the points deliberately have a degree of flex in them to adjust the crossing angle.

 

....is DCC ready, with the metal frog already isolated (no need to cut links).

 

.....also has some Set track pieces which are all part of the same range, so you can mix fixed radius curves and short sections of straight track with the flexi.

 

Apart from the slightly taller rail section (code 83 as opposed to code 75 - i.e. 0.008" ) the overall appearance is of a finer looking rail. Some would say less chunky than the Peco equivalent.

 

As John says above, before laying more careful handling is required as it feels less robust, but this may be down to the less chunky looking build. Once laid and secured it's just as robust.

The Flexi track is very bendy and needs care when laying to ensure the sleepers are right and that it's held firm before the glue sets, otherwise it may move.

If you want to cut the webbing between the sleepers to widen the space them, beware! A lot of care and patience will be required as it's much harder to do than with Peco on curves.

 

There's another area that requires consideration. The Tie Bar on points.

Being more delicate than on Peco, it is susceptible to failure if given a heavy bashing. Interestingly, replacement spare Tie Bars are sold in packs!

Some people opt to replace it with a homemade one before laying.

Personally I think the golden rule is to use more gentle slow motion motors, with or without the original Tie Bar. Do not use solenoids.

 

 

In summary, Tillig has....

a finer appearance

comes "pre-weathered'

better looking points (no spring mechanism or hinges)

a larger range of points and crossings

DCC ready

 

 

See...

http://www.internationalmodels.net/

http://www.internati...e_Track_21.html

http://www.internati...ndex_HO_22.html (note, the concrete sleepers are not actually Green as in the photo here)

85327.jpg

 

.

[Savoyard]

I used Tillig track on my first layout 'Rederring' as I was very imprerssed with the points and as my local shop was selling off his stock at half price I decided to give a try.

 

It is very delicate and I have had problems with the double slip and this has been replaced once but the main cause of this was my initial inexperienced "ham fisted" approach to track laying and I also used the foam underlay used under laminate flooring as I thought cork would be too hard. That was a big mistake as the points are so delicate and the foam too soft with hindsight I should have used cork, in fact I have replaced sections with cork where I had running problems.

 

I want to build another layout and having learnt a lot from building Rederring I will stick with Tillig and use cork and I will use Pete Harveys sleeper spacer to make the sleeper spacing more prototypical.

 

Isn't it about time the manufacturers produced more accurate looking UK track? Tiilig is the only one who currently produce realistic looking points without those hideous joins in the blades, the likes of Hornby go to great lengths to produce accurate fine detailed models yet has track that doesn't offer anything near the same approach to accuracy!

 

Isn't it about time for a "Campaign for Real Rail"?

 

Peter

[Ron Ron Ron]

Isn't it about time for a "Campaign for Real Rail"?

Crikey !

Is it that time of year already ?

 

Seriously though, I couldn't agree more.

 

 

 

[Savoyard]

I forgot to add that I took Rederring over to a friends for a test run and he ran one of his converted 3 rail Hornby Dublo steam locos on it with no problems!

 

Peter

[mr45144]

 

Isn't it about time the manufacturers produced more accurate looking UK track? Tiilig is the only one who currently produce realistic looking points without those hideous joins in the blades, the likes of Hornby go to great lengths to produce accurate fine detailed models yet has track that doesn't offer anything near the same approach to accuracy!

 

Isn't it about time for a "Campaign for Real Rail"?

 

Peter

 

Those hideous joins in the blades like these ones you mean???

 

http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=424&forum_id=11

[Ron Ron Ron]

Those hideous joins in the blades like these ones you mean???

 

http://85a.co.uk/for...424&forum_id=11

That's prettier than the Peco ones.

Isn't that example quite a rarity though and not typical of most pointwork on British rails?

 

 

 

[trisonic]

This is probably why they exist in model form:

 

 

A former Reading branch where the "Perils of Pauline" was filmed.

 

I can't recall seeing one piece "blades" over here - though I have no doubt they exist in large numbers.

 

Best, Pete.

 

PS This photo taken by me at New Hope PA from a pedestrian crossing

[James]

See...

http://www.internationalmodels.net/

http://www.internati...e_Track_21.html

http://www.internati...ndex_HO_22.html (note, the concrete sleepers are not actually Green as in the photo here)

85327.jpg

Having looked at these, I think you be better with Exactoscale Fastrack in 00 - the appearance for concrete sleepered track would be much better. The turnouts look acceptable but overall Fastrack would offer far more for plain line.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Having looked at these, I think you be better with Exactoscale Fastrack in 00 - the appearance for concrete sleepered track would be much better. The turnouts look acceptable but overall Fastrack would offer far more for plain line.

That's something I have been considering too.

The FastTrack flat bottomed rail is code 82 so is an almost perfect match with the Tillig points. The sleeper height difference would mean some compensation or adjustment would be needed, but that's not such a big issue.

 

 

 

[Colin_McLeod]

I looked on some web sites and I notice that the Tillig slips are either inside or outside slips, not sure what that means, Pecos are just slips.

 

The inside slip is the same as Peco, in that the two slip roads are contained inside the frogs and overlap "inside" each other thus:

 

 

In the outside slip (also know as a Baeseler Slip) the two slip roads start outside the frogs and are "outside" each other. They can have completely separate rails, or as in the Tillig example share a common central rail component. Note there is not clearance for both slips to be used at the same time.

 

 

The main advantage of the outside slip is a much greater radius (see Tillig geomoetry details at International Models link )

 

The outside slip was uncommon in the UK but is more prevelant in continental Europe.

[Mucky Duck]

I used Tillig turnouts combined with C&L flexi on my layout, as recommended by Number 6 on his Southerham project. Although I haven't used the track in anger yet, I certainly didn't find the turnouts to be troublesome whilst laying them… flexible, yes, but not fragile.

 

Not a good pic of work in progress but gives you some idea of how it looked while it was being laid and ballasted.

 

[YesTor]

The FastTrack flat bottomed rail is code 82 so is an almost perfect match with the Tillig points.

 

I am beginning a layout and would like more realistic track. Ideally, I want to use Flexible track (concrete sleepers), but I am a little confused over track types, especially where track height is concerned. I understand that Exactoscale FastTrack Flexi is Code 82? So is this compatible with Tillig points, which I understand is Code 83?

 

And also, what about Marcway ready-built points? Would these look and perform better than Tillig? I understand that Marcway matches Peco Code 75? In which case will I be better off using Peco Flexi Code 75, instead of Exactoscale FastTrack?

[Calimero]

Thanks, all for the input plenty of help here. Having looked into I'm still undecided, only thing going against Tillig is probably the cost?

 

SMP, Marcway etc is a good way to go for scale and accuracy but cost and building the track is a bit beyond me unless it can be done with a hammer and a watering can!

 

I also notice that this isn't the first time I've seen Code 83 being mooted as an acceptable alternative, although little choice with Peco as they only seem to do a small selection and no slips.

 

Keep the fight, ideas coming re. the best track.

[RBE]

If you are going for scale and accuracy then C&L or Exactoscale is the way to go, not marcway. I find their track a little basic TBH. Never really a fan of the rail soldered to sleepers with no chairs melarky. You can add cosmetic chairs but the C&L and Exactoscale with their lovely chairs etc are far better. Its easier to build than you would think too.

 

As for RTR track, I would go SMP or C&L for plain wooden sleepered track (I tend to use SMP as Marcway is only up the road for me) and fast track base with code 80/82 rail for concrete track (not strictly RTR but near enough for the better track you get) As for points no RTR track is really correct for UK but have read this I like the idea of the tilig. Pre darkened code 83 rail (which would work with the fast track base and code 80/82 rail) slight fexibility so that you can make more flowing designs and single bendy point blades. There are no RTR suppliers of bullhead pointwork to compliment the SMP but Peco code 75 will fix to it with minimum fuss.

 

I think its safe to say there is no 'Best track' its all down to preference. I personally would sooner spend my cash on a decent exacto point kit than a similarly priced tilig point, and for me Peco, or even more so Hornby, should be fiddle yard fodder. I'm sure there are others that would disagree though. However I don't think that code 100 has any business on a serious layout nowadays. In fact when I flopped open my latest copy of Model Rail this month I seriously thought that the cleckhuddersfax layout was N gauge on first look, the track looked so course (no critisisation of the layout I must add, just a realisation on my part). I guess we all get so used to seeing the fine stuff these days that code 100 sticks out a mile.

 

Cheers

Cav

[Vistisen]

I have just started building a model of the chard branch line, after a break of about 25 years! I fell in love with the look of the Tillig points, but falling firmly into the "hamfisted" brigade, I am wondering whether it is better to have clunky points that don't derail the stock rather than points that look lovely but seem to trip wagons up. Specifically the small radius points seem to have the v of the frog standing slightly higher than the level of the blades. A good friend has minimized the problem by grinding a bit off the top the end of the frog with a mini drill fitted with a slitting disk. But surely this should not have to be done

[Guest Belgian]

I've noticed that the latest Tillig points have a different layout of sleepering, with the timbers aligned at an angle across the rails rather than parallel to the straight rails, which is not British practice. Is this Continental practice or American? It certainly gives an odd look to the track to my (English) eyes.

 

JE

[CourthsVeil]

One should bear in mind that Tillig make and sell two different lines of track (in H0):

- STANDARD being code 100, simpler made and not so expensive,

- ELITE is code 83, rather elegant and - well, as its name implies - not quite cheap.

 

Don’t confuse them whilst considering a purchase!

 

Regards

Armin

[roythebus]

On my most recent working layout, I used a mix of Peco code 75 and Tillig. It worked after a fashion but in my eyes it wasn't satisfactory so the whole lot got ripped up and replaced with SMP/Exactoscale/C&L/Templot in 00 fine-scale; same track plan!

 

Tillig looks good, yes the point sleepers are at an angle. According to Templot, a lot of UK points WERE built this way, it's just that we've been so used to seeing the train set track over the years that we know no different.

 

I had a bit of trouble with the Tillig single and double slips, they are rather fine on the blade clearances and the curves on them are tight, but that may be down to my stock! Also, as others have said, the switch tie bars are a bit delicate. I replaced some of mine with pcb strip. but, with the choice, I'd go for Tillig. I might re-use my stock of Tillig if ever I build another German layout.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Regarding Tillig track, I've just spotted this entry into Mr Nevard's excellent Blog and some photos of the said product......

 

Tuesday October 11th 2011

 

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

 

 

.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Ron Ron Ron

[trisonic]

Perhaps the British company was going for this look: http://www.bdrry.com/2010%20Track%20A%20Turnout%20RFP%201002.pdf

Note most American turnouts are loose heeled though this is obviously ancient, being replaced and is not on a mainline.....

 

It is not the the "spring housing" that offends my eyes but rather the way the British company machine too much metal off the "point blades" to leave a tinplate look......

 

Best, Pete.

[ThaneofFife]

I know this is a real thread revival but it shows the search tool can be extremely useful without starting another post!

 

I am in a similar position to many of the earlier posters here having just binned my layout of 3 years for various reasons one of which was a growing dislike of the fact that I used Peco code 100 track throughout. Nothing against Peco as such but when you start to open your eyes at what else is available the differences become only too obvious and so I am on that same journey now looking at what to use for the new layout.

 

I really do like the appearance of Tlligs Elite turnouts in Chris Nevards photos and given that they can be used with something like Exactoscales code 82 FB flexi-track on concrete bases its seems an ideal match and solution for my BR diesel/electric era circa 1985/1986 layout. Im fairly certain too that with some judicious tweaking of heights I can use standard peco code 75 for the fiddle yards/mom-scenic sections. Is that correct?

 

Having jumped onto a suppliers website i see that these turnouts seem to have varying sleeper spacings depending on what turnout you purchase (unless the website images are not all up to date?). Can anybody shed any light on this and in general is the Tillig and Exactoscale code 82 flexi a good reliable choice/combo?

Edited November 29, 2012 by ThaneofFife

[Gruffalo]

I have a lot of Peco Code 100 that will become a 3m x 3.5m layout in a shed over the next 24 months and it seems a shame to ditch it. Has anyone experience of reducing the rail height on a belt sander to get down to 0.083" or perhaps 0.075"? With 20 turnouts and 3 double-slips in the theoretical plan, the replacement cost for turnouts would be in excess of £300 and these posts have convinced me I should go the "fine scale profile" route, even if I am using OO with all the errors that brings! I am however prepared to ditch the "Streamline" flexible lengths to get the better appearance.