modifying peco points?

[Kenton]

 

As to Kenton's inability to tell the difference, I think you are looking in the wrong place, it's not the gauge, but the flangeway gaps where the differences show up. Once you put stock on it, the wheel differences may also be quite visible.

 

Seeing the even smaller difference in flangeway is even less likely just as is the comparison between wheels - but the argument/discussion between EM/P4 is not I think relevant here. It remains that there is a difference, a very visible one, that exists between OO and the finer gauges. The problem is not just sleeper spacing it is the distance between the rails and the Peco design of the switch "hinge".

[buffalo]

 Seeing the even smaller difference in flangeway is even less likely...

I disagree, because the flangeway is seen in direct comparison with the width of the adjacent railheads but, yes, it is completely off-topic.

 

Nick

[Michaelaface]

okay well I think my point was missed slightly and things are going a bit off topic now

 

Basically I can build copper clad points, I have and can use templot, I have all the gauges and necessary tools to build them and I have already built several using both peco and C&L rails, and yes the time it took to put them together sped up quite a lot the more I got used to what I was doing, however I'm not yet happy with the standard I can build them to, yes I've already looked through this forum for advice on building track (missed the previously linked thread relevant to this one though)

so I was wondering if I could achieve a similar look by carefully modifying a RTR peco point because that way I'd be able to keep the vital parts in tact and be able to have a functioning point 

here is my latest attempt at copperclad points

[47137]

I have modified a Peco N gauge point to turn it into a narrow gauge one and it "worked", but only at the second attempt. If you take out too many original sleepers between the tie bar and the crossing before you solder in the new ones, a curved point will straighten itself up into a sort of Y arrangement and lose the gauge at the same time. I didn't tackle the frog area, I buried it in ballast. I would not attempt to strip a Peco point to rebuild it, I just don't think its worth the effort ... but I would buy a Tillig HO point kit, throw away the moulded base and build it up onto copped clad. This way you get the rail parts already machined.

 

- Richard.

 

[The Bigbee Line]

Why do people concentrate of the track (gauge) when discussing the pros and cons of OO EM and P4.  To me the improved wheelset is the biggest improvement.

 

The true to size flange helps with getting the splashers the right size.

 

For me I tend to view from the side (shelf at high level) so the gauge is not too visible.  The thing I see is the height of the rail, so the change to code 75 over code 100 gives an instant improvement.  With some of the 'mods' previously discussed a swift 10 - 15 minutes can improve the peco point no end.

 

 

There are other easy mods.  One includes swapping out the peco pressed blades for blades filed from rail.  The image below is a peco code 83 turnout with replacement blades and a new tie bar.  A 15 minute mod and in my opinion improves the look and action of the turnout.  The reason for changing was my impression that the over centre spring stressed the rather delicate folded blades.

 

 

[buffalo]

I'm not sure anyone missed your point, it's just that we tend to wander once the basic ideas have been aired.

 

...so I was wondering if I could achieve a similar look by carefully modifying a RTR peco point because that way I'd be able to keep the vital parts in tact and be able to have a functioning point ...

 

In a word, no. You may not have cracked it yet, but there's no way that Peco turnouts can be made to look as good as that.

 

Nick

[Kenton]

 

so I was wondering if I could achieve a similar look by carefully modifying a RTR peco point because that way I'd be able to keep the vital parts in tact and be able to have a functioning point

 

Which I thought had been answered in that link to a previous topic #3 (reading of which) clearly indicates you can modify a Peco point to produce the desire effect. Though the motivation to do so may be in question.

 

Inevitably once a question has been covered several times before, the repeat topic tends to descend into the same spiral as there is little that can be added to move forward.

[hayfield]

John,

 

Did you miss the smiley? I was merely commenting on your wording.

 

Is it really necessary to drag out that old and inaccurate chestnut about P4 layouts not working? I believe there some that work rather well.

 

As to Kenton's inability to tell the difference, I think you are looking in the wrong place, it's not the gauge, but the flangeway gaps where the differences show up. Once you put stock on it, the wheel differences may also be quite visible.

 

Nick

 

 

Nick

 

I did see your Smiley, and like you I have also seen some bad running layouts in 00 gauge. Many modellers accept extremely bad looking turnouts, whilst demanding the highest level of detail from their rolling stock. But that's their choice

 

As it happens the op has built what looks like a half decent crossover, which for some reason is not running as well as it might. As it should not only look better than a RTR product but also work better. With a little tweaking it may solve the problem

[47137]

As it happens the op has built what looks like a half decent crossover, which for some reason is not running as well as it might. As it should not only look better than a RTR product but also work better. With a little tweaking it may solve the problem

The check rail nearest the camera on the left (post #32) looks a bit close to the stock rail. Try easing it across 0.5 mm or so, this may help a lot.

 

- Richard.

[hayfield]

okay well I think my point was missed slightly and things are going a bit off topic now

 

Basically I can build copper clad points, I have and can use templot, I have all the gauges and necessary tools to build them and I have already built several using both peco and C&L rails, and yes the time it took to put them together sped up quite a lot the more I got used to what I was doing, however I'm not yet happy with the standard I can build them to, yes I've already looked through this forum for advice on building track (missed the previously linked thread relevant to this one though)

 

so I was wondering if I could achieve a similar look by carefully modifying a RTR peco point because that way I'd be able to keep the vital parts in tact and be able to have a functioning point 

 

here is my latest attempt at copperclad points

IMG_1863.JPG

 

 

Looks quite good from the angle you have taken the photo from. Without a closer inspection It is hard to see the problem, I would run a straight edge from each side of the Vee to the crossing rails to check all is in line and the knuckle bend is in the correct position.

 

Next would be to check is the flangeway gap is correct, then the check rails. I would advise slightly longer check and wing rails, and from the photo the may be the wing and crossing rails need a bit of attention

 

What make of gauges are you using ?

[sandra]

The type of gauge used does make a difference. If the gauges are for OO finescale then a lot of ready to run stock will not run through points built with them without lurching. I started to build a layout using OO finescale trackwork and I found that most stock had to have the back to back increased in order to run smoothly. This was actually quite easy as most modern stock could be altered by simply moving the wheels slightly further apart. However some older stock such as Lima could not be adapted as the flanges were too deep and these required the wheels to be changed.

 

I did manage to get the railway to run satisfactorily but I was not happy with the appearance and in the end I decided to start again in EM, but that is another story.

[hayfield]

That is why I asked the question.

 

C&L roller gauges are fine for the track gauge, but as they were made to 00-BF some wheels will have to have their back to back measurement enlarged'

 

An 00-sf check rail gauge is fine for 00 gauge, but it would help if wing rail gauges were available, these are flat bars and are very useful in setting the wing / crossing rail.;

 

Whilst you can successfully build a turnout in 00 gauge with just a couple of roller gauges, these other 2 gauges do make life a bit easier 

[gr.king]

I'm sorry to rise to the bait and have a rant, but good grief! How predictable that a simple question about the feasibility of simply improving the proportions of the timbering in a Peco point should lead, yet again, to the hi-jacking of a topic by EM/P4 evangelists (fascists?) insisting that nothing in OO can possibly EVER look anything like correct and that only by following their dogma can you make a reasonable layout!!!

 

OF COURSE YOU CAN PRODUCE DECENT LOOKING MODELS AND A DECENT LAYOUT IN OO FINESCALE, AND THAT IS THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE, LEAST TIME CONSUMING WAY, MOST FORGIVING WAY TO DO IT. OF COURSE THERE ARE FINESCALE OO MODELLERS WHO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MUST BE A CONSISTENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN KEY WHEEL AND TRACK DIMENSIONS, THEY ARE NOT ALL SIMPLETONS. THE APPEARANCE OF A PECO POINT DEFINITELY CAN BE IMPROVED BY REPLACING THE PARTS OF THE TIMBERING THAT ARE LEAST AWKWARD TO REPLACE, AND IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE (within the context of a single track anyway) TO HAVE THE PROPER RELATIONSHIP OF BASIC DIMENSIONS FOR OO - YOU JUST MODEL THE SLEEPER SIZES AND SPACINGS TO TYPICAL FIGURES FOR PERIOD BRITISH TRACK AT 3.5mm : 1ft TO MATCH THE SCALE USED FOR THE RAIL GAUGE. What, about this idea, is so difficult to understand I really don't know, although it is of course very easy for those who don't WANT to allow any view but their own to claim that all other views are incomprehensible or totally illogical.

 

I hope our original poster is not put off by all of the dogma, propaganda and off-topic squabbling that has been throw at this topic. Carry on with your current modelling efforts, there's nothing wrong with what you are doing. That looks a very tidily constructed copperclad crossover by the way, free of the ugly lumps of solder that are sometimes claimed to suggest "chairs", with timbering well spaced. Perhaps rather generous electrical gaps in the copperclad though? On the other hand, you know you won't get and short circuits!

 

Going back to Peco with substituted copperclad sleepers - remember to think carefully about the way Peco points are meant to behave electrically. You have to cut the gaps differently to those in a conventional copperclad point.

[Michaelaface]

little extreme, I got an answer I was happy with anyway, as for the whole scale debate, for me that seems a little bit like arguing over which ice-cream flavour is best, some people are perfectly happy with vanilla flavoured ice-cream, but some people prefer 16.5mm OO-SF flavoured ice-cream

[gr.king]

Yes, I have just re read the whole thread and I agree that I came on more than a bit strong!

 

I am taking my calming down pills now, as the humble pie warms in the oven........

[hayfield]

Nothing wrong with a good 00 gauge layout, just look at what you can by in the way of stock !!. And some of the best scenic work is on 00 gauge layouts. However sadly the likes of GEM with their 4 mm scale track fell by the way side and sadly we are left with a compromise. Now looking at some of the better RTR H0 offerings and they are very realistic, but there is currently a gap in the 4 mm for a product up to the quality now on offer with the latest rolling stock in the looks department.

 

The thread started about adapting what's available in the RTR market, those like myself perhaps have moved the thread slightly off topic. But the OP looks to be nearly there in the hand built field. A couple of us think better results would be obtained by hand building rather than adapting. On the other hand it might just be worth giving it a go and see what happens

[Andy Reichert]

SNIP

 

All the arguments in favour of OOSF come down to improved running and I will not disagree with that. It is still 16.5mm just like the stock that runs on it which is in effect NG.

 

SNIP

 

I'm not responding to you particularly Kenton.  So apologies in advance.

 

This is just what keeps coming up with so many postings that mention the "extra advantages" of 00-SF, beyond it being hand-laying 00 track with 4mm sleepers and spacings. (Which is what the OP seems to be asking for, albeit by "track bashing" rather than full hand-laying).

 

The 00-SF list of widely circulated "pro" benefits always manages to add "improved running" somewhere along the chain. But to stay properly factual, improved running with normal RTR wheels is the one claim that 00-SF can't make. The reason is that you can't improve on 100% perfectly reliable running that the major common manufacturers form of RTR 00, which is solidly based on the NMRA HO standard with code 110 wheels, already provides.

 

The much narrower claim that IS true, is that by providing the slightly narrower crossing flangeway, 00-SF is one (of several) ways of being able to ALSO run the various small and/or kit manufacturers substitution of narrower code 88 wheels, which were never designed to run properly on standard HO track.

 

I'm not sure if I can add more to bring my posting usefully back on topic. If the RTR "points" use code 82 FB rail, then I can offer proper 4mm scale (inexpensive) wood sleepers, pre-built crossings and fully shaped points as "spare parts" that will convert FB rail RTR points to more realistic forms. But the more you replace, the more the "bashed" points are going to end up costing. And if you replace the entire sleeper base, there isn't much of the original points left to save.

 

Andy

[martin_wynne]

The 00-SF list of widely circulated "pro" benefits always manages to add "improved running" somewhere along the chain. But to stay properly factual, improved running with normal RTR wheels is the one claim that 00-SF can't make. The reason is that you can't improve on 100% perfectly reliable running that the major common manufacturers form of RTR 00, which is solidly based on the NMRA HO standard with code 110 wheels, already provides.

 

Hi Andy,

 

Agreed. I have repeatedly said that if you run ONLY RTR models, standard 00-BF works perfectly well, and you don't need 00-SF.

 

 

The much narrower claim that IS true, is that by providing the slightly narrower crossing flangeway, 00-SF is one (of several) ways of being able to ALSO run the various small and/or kit manufacturers substitution of narrower code 88 wheels, which were never designed to run properly on standard HO track.

 

Exactly, although you seem to be dismissing this as not much of a gain. It is a huge gain, at least in the UK, because many finescale modellers do use these wheels -- from Romford / Markits, Alan Gibson, Ultrascale, and others. They all run bumpily on 00-BF (NMRA H0), and smoothly on 00-SF.

 

00-SF is not needed for modellers who don't use such wheels, although the improved appearance of the narrower flangeways is worth having.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Clive Mortimore]

I like Peco points.

 

You open the box or packet.

 

Connect them to the track.

 

Wire up.

 

And run trains.

 

You can work them by point motors, wire in the tube, rods, or by five digit command (very handy).

 

They are reliable.

 

Downside is they do not look to brilliant, but they work as they come.

 

Apart from the last sentence all the rest is positive. I was hoping that there would be more input from those who have retained the positive features of a Peco point and improved the appearance. Sadly the build your own track gang are on here arguing about the same old issues.

[gr.king]

Apologies if this is prolonging the digression from the original very relevant question. I'll explain my position calmly:

 

1. I can build good pointwork in OO f/s using pcb strip and code 75 bullhead rail, and if I had far more time available to do all of the modelling that I would like to do I would gladly do things that way and enjoy saving money in the process. The reality is that I have far more "good ideas" than I have time to put them into effect. I suspect there are many others in the same boat, as well as those who can't or won't build their own points but would genuinely appreciate better-looking track.

 

2. I fully accept that P4 is the ultimate for correct appearance, providing it is constructed by a skillfull person with good knowledge of the prototype and a critical eye. EM is also an improvement in appearance by a large margin over OO, and is a scale in which it is visibly possible to make far more rapid progress towards a medium / large layout than any example of P4 modelling that I've ever seen.

 

3. A partially re-timbered Peco code 75 point will never look perfect, but will look substantially more "at home" alongside SMP or C&L plain track than would the out-of-the-box Peco toy. If re-timbered with pcb then reproduction of decent chairs that help to disguise its incorrect flat-bottom rail too is going to be tricky, but the addition of pcb is inexpensive. It does however require a little skill and some time. This compromise method is however a time-saver compared to full scratch building and doesn't require the full range of skills. The cost overall is of course greater than using the Peco offering "as it comes" and the material cost far higher than scratchbuilding with pcb and rail.

 

4. All of these considerations together explain my decision to try to create chunks of replacement point base in resin, including deceptive "chairs", as direct plug-in replacements for easily removed sections of the original Peco base. It won't be the cheapest way to do things, but will require very little time and skill per point once the moulding process is sorted out. It simply opens up another option for "improved OO". Unfortunately, no matter how thoroughly it illustrates the benefits, I cannot imagine that it will have enough impact to get those at Beer to take their fingers out of their ears (or interrupt the counting of profit) and accept that OO modellers deserve track that looks "Period British". Despite being the mass market, I think we are treated, in effect, as scum compared to the way track is provided for O gauge, various narrow gauges for micro layouts, and even for US code 83 with is of no use at all to us.

 

Incidentally, all of my fairly large mixture of rolling stock, including 1980s-onward RTR with "tweaked" BTB settings on locos or switches to more modern RTR wheels on certain items of rolling stock, right through to recent kit-builds, scratch-builds and complex RTR conversions with RP25 wheels, runs perfectly happily through my own copperclad pointwork AND through PECO 75 medium radius "untouched" points, either when pulling or propelling, so long as the track is laid with care. This must mean that any diversity of wheel and track standards that I have failed to overcome all lies within acceptable tolerances.

 

So is the chore of having to build all of your own pointwork, plus having to either build or re-wheel the chassis for every piece of rolling stock an attractive advertisement for moving into EM or P4 for the sake of the additional gains? 

[martin_wynne]

The arguments about wheels and the width of flangeways are essentially a secondary consideration. The main and overwhelming argument in favour of building your own track is that it allows you to create pointwork on flowing curves, build complex formations, and in a cramped site tweak every last inch of space to fit. If you rebuild Peco turnouts, no matter how realistic you make them look you are still stuck with the original Peco geometry. There is no way you could build something like this with Peco turnouts, out of the box or rebuilt:  

 

 

Martin.

[gr.king]

The point about flowing formations is of course also perfectly true, although the question of wheels and flangeways is hardly "secondary". What's the sense in having pointwork that looks beautiful if the flangeway geometry doesn't suit the wheels so that nothing will run properly??

Also, the possibility of flowing geometry is of no help to those whose time or skill would not allow them to build that sort of pointwork anyway. There is no reason why those with more limited time and skill should not have a decent appearance to such limited styles of pointwork as they are able use.

[martin_wynne]

Nowhere did I suggest that folks should use incompatible track and wheel standards, or that those who are happy to modify or rebuild Peco turnouts shouldn't do so.

 

I simply felt that for many modellers the most significant objection to Peco is often overlooked in these discussions. It's not the poor appearance (which can be improved) -- it's the geometry (which can't). A lot of those who handbuild track are doing so not because they don't like the look of Peco, but because it can't be made to fit their desired track plan. For example it is impossible to create a proper gently curving crossover using Peco turnouts.

 

Martin.

[Debs.]

Martin`s observations are germane to the future enjoyment of the O.Ps layout and any layout that may follow; the choice that being able to make handsome prototypical homebuilt track formations 'flow and fit' into any available area (or concept), will surely add greatly to the beauty and operational enjoyment of any project.

The basic skills needed to contruct good-looking and smooth-running homebuilt trackwork (i.e: accurate measurement, cutting/filing and soldering may be obtained with clear advice available hereabouts on RM-web and may easily be refined with practice.

They would represent transportable practical skills, upon which lifelong enjoyment of the wider hobby can be founded.

 

The O.P has clearly and very commendably learned the use of Templot, so I can see no real reason to limit his/her modelling horizons with set track designs or components (even modified ones).

[Grovenor]

 

So is the chore of having to build all of your own pointwork,

For you apparently not, but for quite a good number of us, its not a 'chore' at all, rather its a pleasure.

Regards

Keith