Wright writes.....

[LNER4479]

I wouldn't quite agree that there's nothing wrong with code 100 track apart from its looks. I've seen numerous instances of it failing to do the job when confronted with finer scale wheels, long fixed wheelbases and/or the requirement for curved turnouts to be used in certain locations. Broad "universal" flangeways aren't universal at all, they are coarse scale by another name. Sooner or later their incompatibility with narrow flanges and narrow treads is likely to be revealed unless adaptations to the track are made (in which case it is no longer true code 100 standards anyway). Throw in a four wheeled vehicle with fine wheels and three point compensation if you really want to see the lurching and derailments begin......

Good points Graeme.

 

What might not be known is that the more recent Peco Code 100 isn't as universal as it once was. All the fiddle yard pointwork on Little Bytham has Peco Code 100 points and track (98% large radius points), and all the points are much 'tighter' across the crossings than they used to be. So much better, that I've not had to modify any as I did on Stoke. This comprised fitting etched nickel silver bases in the 'Vs' and, in some cases, adding a strip of shim to the face of the check rail. I get near-perfect running through the pointwork, though Alan Gibson-standard wheels can have a tendency to lurch more. Since the majority of my stock runs on Romford/Jackson combinations (RP25 mostly), then the running is very smooth. I should also mention that all the points have been modified for true live-frog standards - that is the crossings completely isolated as a unit, the polarity switched by a micro-switch, and the switch rails permanently-bonded to their appropriate rail.

 

The older Peco Code 100 'Universal' is not so good, especially the dead-frog type. How can it be when at one extreme it suggests it takes Tri-ang wheels and at the other old Romfords (though nothing finer)?

 

The reason I chose Code 100 is its durability. A couple of layouts I was involved with had Code 75 in the fiddle yard, and for exhibition running this was not as tough.

Agree with the 'points'   above but just to provide balance to Graeme's examples of unsatisfactory performance, Code 100 can be made to work reliably as I'm sure many others will testify to.

 

Although the goods train in the centre of this picture was brought to a halt for Tony's camera, it ran perfectly satisfactorily through the pointwork shown at a scale 50-60mph. The stock is a mixture of RTR and kit built stock with at least Romfords (possibly finer) wheelsets fitted.

 

I concur with Tony's observations about the latest Peco Code 100 points, which are somewhat 'finer' than their predecessors - at least this has eliminated or reduced some of their more glaring features. But I plead 'guilty as charged' to the lingering presence of some of the older 'universal' points on the layout. As funds allow, they are being replaced.

 

Just my luck to have one right under Tony's nose as he was lavishing loving ministrations to some recalcitrant kit-build locos of uncertain origins ('who the **** built this - did he use a pickaxe?'!). It (the dodgy point) has duly been upgraded.

 

(No connections whatsoever with the firm in Devon - just a happy customer over many years)

[Paul Cram]

From the pictures the only really obvious difference is the over bridge which looks too high compared to the real one.

[MJI]

Very good comparison.

 

Was easy to guess the model but they are so similar it is good.

 

I was impressed

[Tony Wright]

Thanks, Tony - does anyone here, by any chance, know which in which magazine Tony's article about building the PDK B12 appeared?

 

Tony - would you feel able to write about un-rolling and re-rolling the boiler? I've only ever done rolling and assume un-rolling is the opposite, but I've learnt through bitter experience that assumption isn't always a good idea!

 

Thanks

 

Phil

Phil,

 

I don't actually un-roll the boiler completely. Though I'm not a metallurgist, all that will do is work-harden the brass too much in my experience.

 

I never anneal, because that can make the brass too soft.

 

What I do/did is to pass the boiler through my rolling bars. This requires undoing the rollers to slide the pre-rolled boiler on. I then concentrate on making sure the bottom of the boiler (where the edges butt up) is rolled as near as possible to the required diameter. It was these edges which weren't formed properly, producing the 'V' shape at the bottom. The trick is to tighten down the rollers as far as they'll go on the edges. The final dodge is to solder up the bottom seam, just a butt joint to start with, all along the joint. You'll probably end up still with a very slight 'V' at the bottom. If the 'V' is still too pronounced, I put a pair of hardboard 'cheeks' into a large vice, turn the boiler on its side and 'squash' it round between them! Beware, because the boiler has holes for handrails etched in it, making those the weakest point. Too much pressure and the boiler will crease or even collapse along the line of holes. How do I know this?! Once happy with the shape, I solder a strip of scrap etch to the inside of the joint, then file the outside as 'round' as possible. Remember, the joint is at the bottom and any 'un-roundness' is usual impossible to detect once it's in place.

 

I hope this helps. 

[Tony Wright]

From the pictures the only really obvious difference is the over bridge which looks too high compared to the real one.

Paul,

 

Although the span is correct, you're right, the bridge is too high. 

 

That's why I'm sending the drawings to Zane to see if it can be 3D-printed. If not, it's hours and hours of burnt fingers on yards of brass and solder. 

[Tony Wright]

Agree with the 'points'   above but just to provide balance to Graeme's examples of unsatisfactory performance, Code 100 can be made to work reliably as I'm sure many others will testify to.

 

TW Jan14 015_LR.jpg

Although the goods train in the centre of this picture was brought to a halt for Tony's camera, it ran perfectly satisfactorily through the pointwork shown at a scale 50-60mph. The stock is a mixture of RTR and kit built stock with at least Romfords (possibly finer) wheelsets fitted.

 

I concur with Tony's observations about the latest Peco Code 100 points, which are somewhat 'finer' than their predecessors - at least this has eliminated or reduced some of their more glaring features. But I plead 'guilty as charged' to the lingering presence of some of the older 'universal' points on the layout. As funds allow, they are being replaced.

 

Just my luck to have one right under Tony's nose as he was lavishing loving ministrations to some recalcitrant kit-build locos of uncertain origins ('who the **** built this - did he use a pickaxe?'!). It (the dodgy point) has duly been upgraded.

 

(No connections whatsoever with the firm in Devon - just a happy customer over many years)

Having been witness to Grantham's operation now on three (or is it four?) separate occasions, I can assure folk that the running is very, very good through Peco Code 100 pointwork, especially the later stuff. In fact the running is considerably better than some layouts I've seen with hand-made track. To watch, say, a train from Nottingham snake across the junction at the north end, into the platform face is an absolute pleasure. To see a non-stop sweep through at a scale 70 mph is an absolute joy. As too is the loco changing. However, where a slip or diamond has dead frogs, it's best if tender locos (particularly shorter-wheelbase ones) have tender pick-ups, bogie tank locos have bogie pick-ups and 0-6-0Ts are attached to a match-truck with pick-ups.

 

The two locos I've built for Graham - the C12 and J69 - both needed my fitting of these respectively. Now, they run perfectly through the Code 100 points and crossings, with no stalling or stuttering, nor falling into the frogs.

 

After I built them, on test on Little Bytham, because I have all live-frog points and crossings, there was no need for extra pick-ups.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Tony Wright

[MJI]

I will say it is nice to see code 100 track looking so good, your railway is to be honest a masterpiece

[gr.king]

Even though Grantham never had any J50s as pilots or local trip locos, I must now remember to take along my J50 purely to try it out on the pointwork. Why? Well it is compensated and has all wheels provided with pick-ups, so it will be interesting to see whether the compensation allows this particular 0-6-0 to cope faultlessly with the dead frogs or whether it is unable to avoid diving into the crossing gaps. The wheels are Markits rather than narrow tread Gibsons, so it might stand a chance.

Edited October 17, 2014 by gr.king

[St Enodoc]

Thanks Andy,

 

The aged ballast/dirt-effect is still to be added, though I haven't seen this picture before; it's a great help.

 

I think what pleases me the most about these comparative pictures, is that the 'missing' 16 inches is not that apparent from this view. After the crossovers finish on the Down goods, and after the point to the Down lay-by has been crossed, there should be two feet of plain track (five roads) before the bridge goes over. I only have eight inches. But all the lines go off-stage on the straight for a further six inches beyond the bridge - absolutely essential to create the illusion of the main lines carrying on.

 

But, when all is said and done, any realism in the trackwork is down to Norman Solomon entirely. Though 'just' OO, has anyone seen better trackwork than this? Even if my camera's viewpoint is still that of someone about ten feet tall!

What the photo also shows us is that, contrary to what has sometimes been written, it is possible to build double slips in what used to be called finescale 00.

[coachmann]

I would agree on the finesse of the latest Peco Code 100 track. I have a single slip and it didn't dawn on me it wasn't Code 75 even when the fishplates wouldnt fit! Then the penny dropped.......It had arrived in a blue box. Pssst...Anyone wanna cross my palm with silver......?  

[LNER4479]

I would agree on the finesse of the latest Peco Code 100 track. I have a single slip and it didn't dawn on me it wasn't Code 75 even when the fishplates wouldnt fit! Then the penny dropped.......It had arrived in a blue box. Pssst...Anyone wanna cross my palm with silver......?  

Funnily enough, I'm in the market for one more of just that product (to expunge yet another universal point). Stand by for a PM...

[PGC]

Phil,

 

I don't actually un-roll the boiler completely. Though I'm not a metallurgist, all that will do is work-harden the brass too much in my experience.

 

I never anneal, because that can make the brass too soft.

 

What I do/did is to pass the boiler through my rolling bars. This requires undoing the rollers to slide the pre-rolled boiler on. I then concentrate on making sure the bottom of the boiler (where the edges butt up) is rolled as near as possible to the required diameter. It was these edges which weren't formed properly, producing the 'V' shape at the bottom. The trick is to tighten down the rollers as far as they'll go on the edges. The final dodge is to solder up the bottom seam, just a butt joint to start with, all along the joint. You'll probably end up still with a very slight 'V' at the bottom. If the 'V' is still too pronounced, I put a pair of hardboard 'cheeks' into a large vice, turn the boiler on its side and 'squash' it round between them! Beware, because the boiler has holes for handrails etched in it, making those the weakest point. Too much pressure and the boiler will crease or even collapse along the line of holes. How do I know this?! Once happy with the shape, I solder a strip of scrap etch to the inside of the joint, then file the outside as 'round' as possible. Remember, the joint is at the bottom and any 'un-roundness' is usual impossible to detect once it's in place.

 

I hope this helps. 

 

Thanks for the guidance, Tony. Until now, the only etched loco kits I've built have all had flat boilers that I've had to roll myself, but I've just stated a PDK kit for a J19 that has a pre-rolled boiler, so I now know what problems to look for and how to resolve them.

 

Phil

Edited October 17, 2014 by PGC

[Allegheny1600]

 So much better, that I've not had to modify any as I did on Stoke. This comprised fitting etched nickel silver bases in the 'Vs' and, in some cases, adding a strip of shim to the face of the check rail. I get near-perfect running through the pointwork, though Alan Gibson-standard wheels can have a tendency to lurch more. Since the majority of my stock runs on Romford/Jackson combinations (RP25 mostly), then the running is very smooth.

 

 

Hi Tony,

Thank you so much for this.

An old club of mine was building a US based layout using the then newly introduced Peco code 75 track and I got into big trouble for adding 10 thou black plastic shims to the (plastic) check rails! I did do wrong by not asking anyone first but my point was to demonstrate how much better running was with the modification and to see if anyone noticed! Someone did, of course!

So much for Peco "Finescale"!!! It was not suitable for RP-25 wheelsets and now, they have the American code 83 which is much better!

Cheers,

John E.

[ianwales]

Thanks, Tony - does anyone here, by any chance, know which in which magazine Tony's article about building the PDK B12 appeared?

 

 

Thanks

 

Phil

 

Hi Phil

 

It was in BRM, but, which issue I've so far failed to recollect.

 

Ian

[jrg1]

Thanks for the guidance, Tony. Until now, the only etched loco kits I've built have all had flat boilers that I've had to roll myself, but I've just stated a PDK kit for a J19 that has a pre-rolled boiler, so I now know what problems to look for and how to resolve them.

 

Phil

I roll the boiler, and make a liner of brass tube-turned to correct inner diameter on a lathe, and sweated together.

[69843]

Sorry for the accidental dislike jrg1-trackpad slip!

[PGC]

I roll the boiler, and make a liner of brass tube-turned to correct inner diameter on a lathe, and sweated together.

 

Nice idea if you have a lathe. Sadly, I don't! :-(

 

Phil

[westerner]

I once again had the great pleasure of visiting Tony and Mo again at Little Bytham with friends Dave, SAD and Josh all part of the loose group we call the Potter Heigham Finescale Group. Needless to say we had a brilliant time. Much chat, laughter and fun running trains, and as Tony and others have often said the running was exemplary. There were some odd locos running on the East Coast Main Line, from the western and southern as well as the LMS, several of them kit built or scratch built by Dave and SAD, much to Tony's delight.

 

I'm afraid I only bought my slightly modified and weathered RTR stuff.

 

Any way some pics

 

The first one is Dave's Kit built (Gem) Gladstone still to be painted. I gather rescued from e-bay

 

 

The second one is SAD's very much worked on original Hornby Fowler 2-6-4T with brass side tanks.

 

 

The third is SAD's scratch built D9 (I think, I only know about the GWR/WR)

 

 

The last three of this set of Pics are my Weathered RTR stuff. A Bachmann Hall pulling a rake 11 kit built coaches, a Hornby 38xx on a fitted freight and a D63xx also on fitted freight.

 

 

 

 

All these pics are Tony's, though I have got rid of the background in most of them.

 

There will be more.

Edited October 18, 2014 by westerner

[gwrrob]

That photo of 3834 is rather nice.

[westerner]

Robin, that's Tony's expert photography for you.

[Tony Wright]

I once again had the great pleasure of visiting Tony and Mo again at Little Bytham with friends Dave, SAD and Josh all part of the loose group we call the Potter Heigham Finescale Group. Needless to say we had a brilliant time. Much chat, laughter and fun running trains, and as Tony and others have often said the running was exemplary. There were some odd locos running on the East Coast Main Line, from the western and southern as well as the LMS, several of them kit built or scratch built by Dave and SAD, much to Tony's delight. I'm afraid I only bought my slightly modified and weathered RTR stuff.

 

Any way some pics

 

The first one is Dave's Kit built (Gem) Gladstone still to be painted. I gather rescued from e-bay

 

Gladstone f.jpg

 

The second one is SAD's very much worked on original Hornby Fowler 2-6-4T with brass side tanks.

 

Fowler tank.jpg

 

The third is SAD's scratch built D9 (I think, I only know about the GWR/WR)

 

D 9 F.jpg

 

The last three of this set of Pics are my Weathered RTR stuff. A Bachmann Hall pulling a rake 11 kit built coaches, a Hornby 38xx on a fitted freight and a D63xx also on fitted freight.

 

Lotherton Hall f.jpg

 

38xx f.jpg

 

63xx f.jpg

 

All these pics are Tony's, though I have got rid of the background in most of them.

 

There will be more.

Alan,

 

Many thanks indeed.

 

I enjoyed the day immensely, and many thanks to you and the others for your hospitality at the pub.

 

 

I like this shot because it's highly unlikely. A Bachmann Hall, modified by you into a beautifully-weathered example, running through Little Bytham on an Up express. Not a frequent occurrence.

 

 

With respect, this is much more up my street, Sad's Nu-Cast D2. Didn't it run beautifully for a 4-4-0 - so well balanced?

 

 

 

Also up my street - Sad's scratch-built D9 (I've done a 'proper' job in taking out the backgrounds! - sorry for the pomposity). I've been making progress with the signal box - verandah and rails, steps and coal bunker.

 

I used this latter picture today during my talk at Peterborough to illustrate, in part, how I see the hobby is changing. Does one need to build a Midland 'box any more? Maybe not (Scenecraft?), but what about that superb D9? 

 

 

This was a weird-looking thing, but beautifully-made and a superb runner.

 

 

A very nice Adam's Radial, too.

 

 

Even more weird! But it hauled 12 kit-built bogies with ease.

 

 

A very nice Fowler 2-6-4T with a limousine cab.

 

 

 

Then two very attractive weathered examples of WR motive power.

 

Don't (implied?) apologise for your 'only-weathered' motive power. The things you guys brought yesterday are examples of what (to me) locomotive building is all about. Modified/weathered proprietary items, kit-built items and (the ultimate) a scratch-built item. You've had a go, should take great pride in your work and rejoice in the exceptional running of your stock. You are all doers, not commissioners! 

 

You were not at Peterborough, but as a piece of my talk I had my audience (or at least most of them) hooting at the notion as to the future of the hobby. DVDs on how to write cheques, open boxes and put stuff on the track! 

 

Speaking of my talk, may I please thank all those present for the many and varied questions and the generous round of applause, please? For those I 'offended', sorry!

Edited October 18, 2014 by Tony Wright

[Clive Mortimore]

A question to Alan or SAD, what is the origin of the SR 350?

 

Here is my effort, still needs handrails 20 plus years since I made it.

 

The drivers are explaining to the union rep that have haven't blacked the engine, they just can't get in it.

 

 

 

 

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Now this is a super photo - the old GWR clonker looks great from this angle, the only improvement really would be to add the crew leaning over the cabside to see who was snapping 'their' loco.  An entirely convincing recreation of an every day scene, and all the better for it.

 

Even the NEM box and milk churns aren't too distracting.

 

 

Bravo, Sirs!

[westerner]

Clive. The loco is Dave's and is a resin body (I think) but developed for the Hornby 08 chassis. Dave had a Bachmann chassis and had to do a bit of scraping of the inside of the upper body to get it to fit. He contacted the maker of the body who I think then modified it to fit a Bachmann chassis. I'm not sure who did the body. Perhaps Dave may post and tell the full details

 

Tony I'm glad you uncluttered the background. A much better job than me. Hope you enjoyed the CD of photos of our layouts, and thank you for the compliment of my weathering, three more examples below which you didn't see

 

Some more pics of WR and two of the southern on Little Bytham This time all mine.

 

Two more of Dave's southern locos a C2 and something else (not sure what)

 

 

 

 

 

The rest are a Bachmann Pannier, a Hornby large Prairie and a Heljan Western. All mine.

 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2014 by westerner

[Nelson Jackson]

@ westerner, can i please ask where did you get the brass side tanks for your Hornby fowler? I could use some for a future project.