RMweb Gold chris p bacon Posted April 27, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 27, 2012 I have used Peco code 75 and as an improvement over code 100 I was quite pleased with it, now the problem is I have been looking at Peterborough North and Eastwood Town and realise just how better hand built trackwork looks. I have looked at replacing what I have with C & L or such like but with the quantity to replace it is just not feasable either time or cost wise, so I have thought about removing some sleepers and respacing what is left to something a bit more prototypical. If I am correct a 60ft track panel has 24/5 sleepers which equates to 240mm in 00/4mm, over this length Peco has approx 34 sleepers which is a lot more, Has anyone tried this and what did the results look like ? I don't think I could remove 10 sleepers over 240mm as there would not be a good transition between plain track and pointwork, but I think at least 5-7 could come out and improve the look. Thoughts anyone ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRealistic Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Hi Chris Go to page 46 of Issue 1 of Modelling Inspiration for Andy's 'How to do it... and doesn't it look good' article. I'm convinced it'll be worth it. Have a go at the points as well... Here's a 'work in progress' shot of the toe end of a peco point I've been having a go at. Still more to do to the tie bar, and I'm keeping one of the 'oversized' sleepers in a whittled down form (left of the tie bar), but the reason for the pic is to suggest, when you do remove the sleepers from your flexi track, keep the first 4 together as a unit and slip these onto the toe end of the point (in place of the gubbins that's there). The sleeper nearest the tie bar will need it's inside fixings/chairs removed to allow the switch rails to slide to the rails. My stock runs through OK. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold chris p bacon Posted April 27, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted April 27, 2012 Ta Alan MI 1 !! how did I miss that ! Just had a quick look at the article, I note it gives a spacing of 7.5mm centre to centre, this would work out at reducing a "60ft" panel by about 5 sleepers, as the Peco sleepers are a little smaller I reckon taking out anymore would not look right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon hudson Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Hi Chris I cannot recomend Andy's technique enough!! I made my own jig out of plasticard and I'm pleased with the results it's time consuming but once you achieve a rythm it's not bad. Just slap some decent music on.I havent done any point work but can certainly say the modified track looks the part-Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRealistic Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 All those sums about centres and stuff do my head in! Take no notice of the ballast... and the fact a few sleepers aren't quite right... but this was my trial based on 5mm between the sleepers. Like Simon I'll be making a jig, and it just so happens the coffee stirrers from McD are 5mm wide, so I might be using those! 'Fraid it's the way I do things... if it looks about right that's fine by me! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon hudson Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 i whole heartedly agree with the above I think my spacings were about 6mm .6.5mm being a colliery layout i didn't need to be exact.I made the jig about 7-8 inches long and suprisingly it did the job i laid 12' double tracck plus sidings -Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted April 27, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 27, 2012 Here's a comparison piece I did on my aborted layout Tresarrick Standard Peco at top, my re-spaced Peco in the middle & SMP at the bottom. I left a gap of 4.5 mm between sleepers, I thought it worked ok visually. Any wider gaps starts to over-emphasise the fact that the Peco sleepers are also too narrow... I also did something similar to "BRealistic" with the points, removing sleeper with the spring mounting (although I replaced with copperclad), and removing the excess plastic from the sleeper with the motor mounting. I does improve the look in my mind, although now i'm tempted to scratch build points.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianwales Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Hi All PH Design do an etched brass sleeper spacing tool - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/54463-ph-designs-sleeper-spacing-tool/ Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold chris p bacon Posted April 27, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted April 27, 2012 Thanks for the info, I think I'll have a go at a test piece first to see if I can get a rythm going. I have approx 75 yds (3 boxes) to do so it was a bit daunting. There are approx 60+ points so that may wait ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted April 27, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 27, 2012 Take no notice of the ballast... The ballast is horribly coarse - the ballasting on the other hand very fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oldlugger Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 All those sums about centres and stuff do my head in! Take no notice of the ballast... and the fact a few sleepers aren't quite right... but this was my trial based on 5mm between the sleepers. Like Simon I'll be making a jig, and it just so happens the coffee stirrers from McD are 5mm wide, so I might be using those! 'Fraid it's the way I do things... if it looks about right that's fine by me! It looks excellent Alan! Sleeper spacing in reality is not a consistent thing at all due to movement caused by the passage of trains and ballast shifting. I've seen lots of examples where sleepers are lying at odd angles to each other with varying gaps in between. Admittedly this is on secondary less well looked after lines, but I'm sure variations also occur on mainlines, albeit to a lesser degree. Also levels of ballasting around track vary. Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRealistic Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Ian I know about the tool, Ian, but I'd much rather make my own for free. Must be the simplest of jigs to make... come to think of it, I made something like it at primary school for 'playing marbles' with. Had a handle at one end. Simon.. the Flying Pig. Can't quite fathom the point you're making, Simon. If it's that the ballast I used is too course, then I agree, which is why I said take no notice of it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold chris p bacon Posted April 27, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted April 27, 2012 Can't quite fathom the point you're making, Simon. If it's that the ballast I used is too course, then I agree, which is why I said take no notice of it! I took it that he was actually complementing you on your ballasting skills. Something I doubt he will do for me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRealistic Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Got it, at last, so thanks Simon the FP. I sneezed shortly after.. you should see it now! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted April 27, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 27, 2012 I took it that he was actually complementing you on your ballasting skills. So did I It looks remarkably effective despite the ballast. It'll be interesting to see what your points look like ballasted too as what you've done is a huge improvement on the rtp. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campaman Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 I think the fact that you also end up with a gap under the rails between the sleepers rather than the plastic base also helps a lot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold chris p bacon Posted May 1, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted May 1, 2012 That would probably corect for some locations, but the ECML/GN in our area is ballasted to the top of the sleeper so Peco webbing is covered This is the yard in the mid 50's and shows deep ballast Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sn Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 That would probably corect for some locations, but the ECML/GN in our area is ballasted to the top of the sleeper so Peco webbing is covered This is the yard in the mid 50's and shows deep ballast # First glance at that pic and I thought it was Corwen! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brossard Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Some track had sleepers spaced closer near the fishplates since this is an area requiring additional support. Some have argued that 00 track with proto sleeper spacing just accentuates the narrowness. I believe this is Peco's rationale for their spacing - it's in proportion. I did try to increase sleeper spacing on a short piece of track but it exhausted my patience. When I next lay track it will be C&L. If you're overseas as I am you can buy rail in half meter lengths and sleeper bases that are about 6" long. It is difficult and expensive to have meter long flexi track shipped to NA. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
artizen Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 I asked C+L to cut their track in half to make it easier to post. No problems apparently to do that, it's just that it makes it just a little bit harder to get all the lengths to curve nicely when laying it but a minor problem really. I am using code 75 Peco on my current West of Worcester layout but i will keep the sleeper spacing this time because the layout is more of a scenic demo than an accurate representation of track. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave777 Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 It's an astounding photo by Rich - I can't believe what a different it makes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted May 27, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 27, 2012 Here's a comparison piece I did on my aborted layout Tresarrick Standard Peco at top, my re-spaced Peco in the middle & SMP at the bottom. I left a gap of 4.5 mm between sleepers, I thought it worked ok visually. Any wider gaps starts to over-emphasise the fact that the Peco sleepers are also too narrow... I also did something similar to "BRealistic" with the points, removing sleeper with the spring mounting (although I replaced with copperclad), and removing the excess plastic from the sleeper with the motor mounting. I does improve the look in my mind, although now i'm tempted to scratch build points.... No comparison. To me if the original Peco Code 75 bothers you, go straight to SMP. Altering the Peco spacing seems to be a wasted effort. Kevin Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold colin penfold Posted May 27, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 27, 2012 No comparison. To me if the original Peco Code 75 bothers you, go straight to SMP. Altering the Peco spacing seems to be a wasted effort. Kevin Martin I think Kevin has a good point (or plain track if you prefer) Unless you have vast stocks of peco and no fiddle yard to lay it in, surely it makes sense to buy the SMP/C&L product. A quick search this morning shows C&L £4.90 a length and Peco about £3. If you lay 25 yards you pay an extra £50. How long to re-space sleepers on 25 yards - 4 hours? More? In terms of efficiency and cost-benefit analysis those hours could surely be more effectively used elswhere? Most of us have to balance buying off the shelf with kit building and scratch building. To me the trick is in spending your time where it is either creating the best personal satisfaction/enjoyment or the biggest financial saving. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted May 27, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 27, 2012 An interesting discussion, as I've been thinking about the same thing for my new layout. The thought of re-spacing over 50 metres of Peco 75 isn't appealing, so I'm thinking about buying C&L from the outset. Has anybody in this discussion built a largish layout mixing C&L with code 75 Peco points (sleepers unaltered) - if so, what does it look like? Can't say I fancy making my own points (other priorities). Any comments welcome. If this is off-topic, please PM me. Thanks, Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold chris p bacon Posted May 27, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted May 27, 2012 I think Kevin has a good point (or plain track if you prefer) Unless you have vast stocks of peco and no fiddle yard to lay it in, surely it makes sense to buy the SMP/C&L product. A quick search this morning shows C&L £4.90 a length and Peco about £3. If you lay 25 yards you pay an extra £50. How long to re-space sleepers on 25 yards - 4 hours? More? He may have, but for me it is not quite so simple. When I started i had not found RMweb and so seeing layouts at exhibitions was the only visual I had of C&L/SMP, and this was was coupled to handbuilt pointwork, whenever I asked advice at various demos the replies were along the lines of "don't mix the track and points" so I went down the Peco route, as regards the difference in cost, at the time the difference was along the lines of £3-400 for plain track as I could get boxes of 25yds discounted for bulk buying which i couldn't for C+L etc but the cruncher was the pointwork, I worked out the average cost of a code 75 point was £9 (med rad, long rad, single slip + double slips) if I was to hand build the pointwork then the component cost alone was coming out at £23-5+ per point, now if you consider that I have something like 65 points this means that the extra for the pointwork was something in the order of £1000 coupled with the plain track it was running at £1300 extra for something I had no experience of laying and not a lot of confidence. I have to say I have been happy with the code 75, it has reliable running and was easy to lay (wiring the double slips is another matter though!) it was just when I started to follow the Peterboro North and eastbrook town threads, I just feel that Gordon and Gilbert's work is tempting me to "The dark side". I must start a layout topic on progress so far then others can give their thoughts on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.