Peco OO/HO large radius point measurement query

[hayfield]

Post #38.

Martin said: "I'm not sure where this leaves anyone designing a layout using these turnouts, but it's amusing to play with in Templot. "

 

It may be, Martin, that it leaves us/them/whoever, (the vast majority probably)  as I suggested earlier, using PECO track as it's designers intended, not worrying about angles and things and just getting on and having fun with their trains.  ​

 

For those, who are fewer in number, like yourself, Grovenor, AndyID, Hayfield to mention but 4 contributors to these track threads, who have a great knowledge of the technical aspects of track design, wheels and geometries etc the detailed debates are probably stimulating. If nothing more they certainly illustrate to and educate others, and I use myself as the sole example here lest I cause offence to anybody else, about the subject. Though I don't fully understand it. Is life long enough?

 

Perhaps anybody who is curious about or questions PECO, or other, rtr track standards and geometries is already moving beyond using those products towards different track they might make themselves with, perhaps also, a gauge other than 16.5mm (I have deliberately not used the words: right, accurate, prototypical, or alluded to any ordained standards. :-) )​

​

For folk who want to plan a layout with any of the rtr track systems software such as Anyrail software may be helpful.

 

 

 

 

​

 

Richard

 

Thanks for the ego boost, sadly my knowledge on the technical side is very limited, my forte is on the building side

 

I think the problems start with track being something of a Cinderella subject and the historical side where sizes of turnouts being defined by radius in the model world. This being compounded by many modellers thinking that the offerings from the RTR modelling trade are scale products. The RTR ranges are designed to so that turnouts and crossings can be used together in formations to fit within their various curved set track(for want of a better description)curves

 

Many modellers just do not know what track should look like, especially turnouts. Not a problem if you want to play trains

 

Now for those who use these systems, its fine and is a quick and easy solution to track. But when the go to the n'th degree to have the correct numbered locos in the correct livery etc etc then run it on what is either the wrong scale track (nothing to do with gauge) with sharp radius turnouts and crossings, and normally with the wrong type of rail profile, I do have a bit of a smile. But then I like shiny clean stock, each to their own

[Joseph_Pestell]

After only about 2 or 3 years they changed to what they called the MarkII design, starting with the short Y-turnout. These had the holes for the clip-under point-motor and chamfered ends on the vee rails to make the dead frog area as short as possible. The rails were moulded in situ by insert moulding -- making it impossible to have flexible switches.

 

My recollection was that after the short MarkII Y-turnout appeared there was a long wait for the straight turnout to return to production in MarkII form, leading to various daft track plan designs being published comprised entirely of short Y-turnouts.

 

Martin.

 

Thank you Martin. It is a long time ago and I was very young. I had Formoway before I had any Streamline.

 

Why would it not be possible to insert mould flexible blades? How do others make their pointwork?

[RichardS]

Re post #50 Martin.

 

Yes, agreed, it's all to easy as these threads evolve for the OP to be overlooked as people innocently warm to the topic or start discussing a sub thread that arises. In fact I overlook that I too was investigating the PECO radius a while back when you introduced me to the concept of the radius that some call 'substitution' and you call 'Geometric External', and some probably call nothing at all. (Got to be so careful!) (Cheesy grin with big wink)

 

I must say that when I asked a direct question of the PECO technical advice desk the gentleman I spoke to was immediately helpful and answered my question directly albeit the answer was given in inches first and metric second. lol  And that may have been because the answer is better in inches.

 

Perhaps its just a case of asking PECO.

 

Regards

 

Richard

[martin_wynne]

Why would it not be possible to insert mould flexible blades? How do others make their pointwork?

 

Hi Joseph,

 

The moving ends of the blades would be locked to the plastic. There would be no way to mould the tops of the timbers under the moving blades. Or at least, not without a mould tool of mind-numbing complexity, full of moving parts and costing telephone numbers to make. I wouldn't want to be the one designing it.

 

It's possible to imagine different arrangements where the middle section of the timbers under the blades is left out, and a separate moulded piece inserted afterwards. Or the blades are moulded attached to a separate section of timbering which is inserted afterwards. But another reason for preferring the pivoted blades is that they require much less force to move -- the little clip-under point motor being a feeble thing compared with much larger point motors.

 

Of course loose-heel pivoted switch blades don't have to be stampings, they could be made from actual rail. But that makes them more expensive.

 

Other manufacturers mould the base first and then slide the rails in, in the same way as flexi-track. This was also the original MarkI Peco design.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hi Joseph,

 

The moving ends of the blades would be locked to the plastic. There would be no way to mould the tops of the timbers under the moving blades. Or at least, not without a mould tool of mind-numbing complexity, full of moving parts and costing telephone numbers to make. I wouldn't want to be the one designing it.

 

It's possible to imagine different arrangements where the middle section of the timbers under the blades is left out, and a separate moulded piece inserted afterwards. Or the blades are moulded attached to a separate section of timbering which is inserted afterwards. But another reason for preferring the pivoted blades is that they require much less force to move -- the little clip-under point motor being a feeble thing compared with much larger point motors.

 

Of course loose-heel pivoted switch blades don't have to be stampings, they could be made from actual rail. But that makes them more expensive.

 

Other manufacturers mould the base first and then slide the rails in, in the same way as flexi-track. This was also the original MarkI Peco design.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

This question goes back, of course, into my researches into making rtl OO pointwork. On that thread, there was a marked preference from the contributors for non-pivoted pointblades.

 

I have not had any joy so far finding a UK insert moulding firm which wants to work on this. So perhaps that is the wrong solution anyway and I should be looking at a moulded base with the rails threaded afterwards.

[martin_wynne]

I have not had any joy so far finding a UK insert moulding firm which wants to work on this. So perhaps that is the wrong solution anyway and I should be looking at a moulded base with the rails threaded afterwards.

 

There are other solutions. For example the individual chairs or baseplates could be insert moulded onto the rails, and then clipped into a timbering base. This might have several advantages -- the chairs are easier to mould if they don't have to be made a close slide-on fit on the rails; the same chaired rail parts could be used in different bases, making it less expensive to provide both left and right versions, say. You could even imagine using the same base moulding for left and right, simply turning it over. This would require the equalized (skewed) style of timbering.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Silver Sidelines]

Then of course there is the recipe for the 'plastic' - Peco points 'by and large' have turned out pretty durable and I am still using some from the 1970s/1980s with metal wing rails (and shims in the frogs for finer wheels).

 

Ray

[Pacific231G]

The first Peco Streamline turnout was shown at the Toy Retailers Fair in 1961:

 

 

No dimensions given, but counting the timbers (24) makes it shorter than the current Small Radius turnout (25 timbers). Flexible switches from normal rail section, rather than the current loose-heel stampings. The moulded check rails are longer than current production.

 

Martin.

Hi Martin

The first reference I've found to these points actually being marketed was in Peco's advert in the December 1962 RM. The picture is the same and the points are described as left and right hand two foot radius for 15/6 each; this is their ad the following month giving rather more detail.

At 6 3/4 inches it was about half an inch shorter than the current offering with only two timbers beyond the end of the blades rather than the current three; that's not enough to account for the entire difference so the geometry may have been slightly different. Mention of "correct six foot way" suggests a smaller separation than the current two inches (which was the BRMSB standard) but the timbering at the frog end seems to be the same as now.

 

I strongly suspect that the blades were hinged. Though that isn't apparent in the photo it seems to be the same photo they used in 1961 so, given the eighteen month or so gap before it actualy reached the market this was presumably a pre-production sample. 

 

Interesting to look at what other manufacturers were offering around that time, several of them making much of their British sleeper spacing.

• Gem were offering 24 and 36 inch radius turnouts and a 24" radius crossover.
• G.F. claimed for Formoway that "you can't tell the difference" (with a photo of a real location alongside a drawing, never a photo, of one of their points demonstrating that you could!!) thanks to "correct sleeper spacing and long flexing point blades". At 8'6 each Formoway points were about half the price of Peco's though their plain track was virtually the same price. 
• Alan Brett Cannon were offering Chairway with bullhead rail and apparently just a 36" turnout which was also available as a kit. It's difficult to tell from adverts which didn't show pointwork but the plain track looks closer to scale than any of the other offerings.

Wrenn, in1961, were interesting as they were advertising their previously export only  "fine scale" nickel silver track "for those fastidious modellers demanding a nearer to scale track". This was aimed at the American and European market with turnouts quoted as no 4 and no 6 and sleeper spacing similar to Peco Streamline (the no 4 point aprox  2' radius  has 25 timbers).At that time their main domestic offering was "universal" track with closing crossings. 

[Crewlisle]

If someone new to modelling & had no idea what to buy logged in to this forum he/she would think that Peco track work/points were the biggest load of c..p this side of the Atlantic!  All you sanctimonious modellers ( RichardS & Silver Sidelines excepted), whilst respecting your mathematical & modelling knowledge, cast sneering comments on us ‘peasants’ who are quite happy with Peco points & track work.

 

Probably 90% of the popular scales (N, OO & O gauge) UK layouts at exhibitions use Peco track & points.  Not once in exhibiting over the last 30 years has anyone commented on my layout (or probably others much better than mine) that Peco is the wrong gauge, wrong sleeper spacing or that the radii on points are not as advertised.  Most modellers are aware of these points but are prepared to accept them.  Most do not want to spend hundreds of hours constructing points or track but would sooner complete their layout (Is a layout ever completed?) to their satisfaction & enjoy operating it.  Peco points look good & can be a perfect ‘mix & match’ for all the different radii required on a layout.

 

How durable are hand built points or track work?  All my points & track work are Peco.  Most of the points & track work on my layout are over 40 years old.  It was only about 5 years ago that I started to replace my Peco points with the new models with smaller clearances.  My original ones had worn out & had to cater for the thick Triang wheel flanges.  

 

So please, stop nit picking at so called ‘errors’ of Peco point work which 99% modellers are aware of but are quite happy to ignore as they look good & work straight out of the box!  My layout is DCC, Peco Code 100 track/points, Peco solenoid point motors, no polarity switches (except on the live diamond crossing) & I have no problems traversing point work.

[hayfield]

Crewlisle

 

No one is saying Peco products are bad products, on the contrary they are well made and very reliable. Most modellers (far less than 99%) do use Peco track, but does that make them correct ? No one is saying stop using these products

 

I think I am safe to assume that you are a 4 mm 00 gauge modeller along with the vast majority of modellers, and I assume are among those who are demanding/expecting ever improving models in quality and detail.

 

Now Peco track is built to H0 scale which is 3.5 mm to the foot, their 00/H0 universal track system uses standards designed for rolling stock standards used 50+ years ago. For 00 gauge the sleeper spacing is all wrong, on turnouts and crossings they also use the wrong width timbers and the geometry of the turnouts and crossings are designed to fit track together rather than follow prototype practices, for instance the turnout angles are all the same regardless of turnout size. The rail is the wrong profile for most historic layouts and devoid of chair detail.

 

Just because you are happy with these products does not mean others must accept the inadequacies of these products (cant really call them models). If everyone else accepted poor representation of their favourite locos/coaches/wagons we still would be having a range similar to what was available in the 60's !! Also for those wishing to buy scale model trackwork, why should they not seek better looking models with the correct rail profile in the appropriate scale. And if those like me wish to build scale models why do you object ?

[Il Grifone]

The photo above clearly shows that the "fine scale longer look" means U.S. sleeper spacing in H0 scale (Nothing wrong with that of course - I've used it for my U.S. layout). I had a single Streamline point in an early layout I built (No photos as film was too expensive at the time - I only discovered slides later and they were expensive enough at around 5p a shot - 60/70p in today's devalued currency)in a middle of Formoway. It stuck out like the proverbial sore thumb. It also gave running problems but I think those were due to the 2 foot radius rather than anything else (The Formoway was all 3 foot.) I did find that flexing the rail put too much strain on the plastic tie-bars and they were prone to failure. I use insulated rail joiners between blades and closure rails these days to provide a little more flexibility.

 

As someone said (forget who) many years ago, "The track is a model too."

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...How durable are hand built points or track work?  All my points & track work are Peco.  Most of the points & track work on my layout are over 40 years old.  It was only about 5 years ago that I started to replace my Peco points with the new models with smaller clearances.  My original ones had worn out & had to cater for the thick Triang wheel flanges...

 Spot on with the durability and 'universality' from an OO operational perspective.

 

Soldered track construction for the odd formation that cannot be done reasonably well from Streamline pieces will not last nearly as long in service. I know that from past experience so keep such pieces in my plans to an absolute minimum. (One 48" radius double slip and a couple of large radius three ways in my case.) For those of us who build 'forever' layouts of some size for personal use, this is a very significant consideration. I know that a day will come when between shaky hands and degrading eyesight I can no longer build and repair such track pieces.

 

I'd like a RTR point option that looks better to match SMP and C&L's RTR plain track- essentially following the pattern of timbering long established in OO soldered track, both DIY and as produced commercially by the likes of Marcway - but until that comes along it's going to be the Streamline large radius point (whatever dimension it is) as the best RTR offering available.

[orford]

confused dot com

[hayfield]

 Spot on with the durability and 'universality' from an OO operational perspective.

 

Soldered track construction for the odd formation that cannot be done reasonably well from Streamline pieces will not last nearly as long in service. I know that from past experience so keep such pieces in my plans to an absolute minimum. (One 48" radius double slip and a couple of large radius three ways in my case.) For those of us who build 'forever' layouts of some size for personal use, this is a very significant consideration. I know that a day will come when between shaky hands and degrading eyesight I can no longer build and repair such track pieces.

 

I'd like a RTR point option that looks better to match SMP and C&L's RTR plain track- essentially following the pattern of timbering long established in OO soldered track, both DIY and as produced commercially by the likes of Marcway - but until that comes along it's going to be the Streamline large radius point (whatever dimension it is) as the best RTR offering available.

 

Other than the odd tiebar (and with new building methods now being so much better than older methods) that needs a quick dab with a soldering iron, if anything they are far stronger than RTR turnouts. Now with chaired track having proved its longevity and the use of modern glues/solvents, not only can you build something which looks far superior, they work just as well and are robust in operation.

 

The one draw back is having the skills to either assemble kits or build from scratch, or pay a premium for a hand built product. 

[vitalspark]

Agree with the last post as regards the durability of handbuit points.

Our exhibition layout Alloa is large and has an intensive running schedule and has lasted over 7 years with only the odd tie bar needing resoldered…pretty good and as durable or better than Peco which lets face it looks like what it is..rtr train set track.

All the more surprising is the fact that the guy who built all of the Alloa points was his first attempt and all worked from the outset..and still do seven years later.

Apart from hand built points looking correct with the proper sleeper spacing etc.. its a fraction of the cost of ready made points and probably well within the capabilities of most modellers with even a reasonable ability with a soldering iron..most who attempt it are surprised at their first attempt and by the third  or so are producing decent working points that look great and cost little..win win.

Too many think hand built points are the province of the fine scale modeller but if you can build a kit you can certainly build a point…have a go and leave mediocrity behind!

 

Dave

[Jeff Smith]

Yes, this has been discussed many times on here. Peco makes fine durable track for HO, it looks half decent until you put an OO vehicle on it.

 

I would not touch OO with a bargepole now but I will be using the venerable O-16.5 track for my Glyn Valley Tramway layout as it happens to be exactly the correct scale gauge and approximately the correct rail size and sleeper spacing. I will just have to put up with the hollow point blades.....

[Pacific231G]

The photo above clearly shows that the "fine scale longer look" means U.S. sleeper spacing in H0 scale (Nothing wrong with that of course - I've used it for my U.S. layout). I had a single Streamline point in an early layout I built (No photos as film was too expensive at the time - I only discovered slides later and they were expensive enough at around 5p a shot - 60/70p in today's devalued currency)in a middle of Formoway. It stuck out like the proverbial sore thumb.

 

Hi David

Not quite true. The Streamline sleeper spacing and their width are both rather large in H0 for U.S. practice as you can see if you compare the templates for Peco's Streamline and 83 Line products (.http://www.peco-uk.com/page.asp?id=tempc83 )

I'd always been told that Peco's track design was an unholy compromise between British 00 and American H0 and incorrect for both but it turns out that they are remarkably accurate for European (well French at least) main line track with 60cm sleeper spacing. The only odd thing are the rail fixings; typical practice for Vignoles (flat bottom)  rail is to use track screws screwed down onto the web with six pre-drilled holes in each sleeper, but Peco seem to have based theirs on elastic mounts then being introduced for modern CWR track.

The other things that our counterparts the other side of the channel seem aware of in Peco turnouts are the non prototypical tie bar mechanism and the plastic check rails and there have been several articles and postings on upgrading these. I have though seen no negative comment on their pointwork geometry which also makes me wonder whether, having effectively decided to make H0 track, they nipped across the channel for the prototype. This is of course cold comfort for 00 modellers but very useful for those of us working in European H0. 

 

One thing worth remembering is that, at the time that Peco introduced Streamline, British manufacturerers were under intense pressure to export their products- remember "Export or Die"; we'll probably never know but I wonder if that influenced Sidney Pritchard's thinking.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Other than the odd tiebar (and with new building methods now being so much better than older methods) that needs a quick dab with a soldering iron, if anything they are far stronger than RTR turnouts. Now with chaired track having proved its longevity and the use of modern glues/solvents, not only can you build something which looks far superior, they work just as well and are robust in operation... 

 I have not experimented with this track building method, all my handbuilt track is done the 'old way', rail directly soldered to copperclad.

 

I'll be frank here, I straight up don't trust claims for longevity and operational robustness unless properly qualified.

 

The Peco point still works fault free after thirty years installed in various locations, and having accrued circa a million duty cycles of loco plus train going over, whichever route is the principal running road. (Slow motion motors or wire in tube operation only, no solenoid 'bangers' allowed!)

 

Soldered construction track will fail within five years given this work out. (I operate a lot by most people's standards, two or more hours a day, every day I am home.)

 

It will be some years before I can give a verdict on the longevity of solvent assembled chaired style hand built track, better get on with making some and devising a suitable life test rig.

[Jeff Smith]

Soldered copperclad construction runs the risk of eventual breakage due to environmental temperature changes much more than Peco or any track constructed of plastic chairs or spikes that allow for some expansion/contraction movement of the rail against the sleepers.

 

I would say this is as much responsible for the longevity of Peco track as anything else connected with the design or construction.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hi David

Not quite true. The Streamline sleeper spacing and their width are both rather large in H0 for U.S. practice as you can see if you compare the templates for Peco's Streamline and 83 Line products (.http://www.peco-uk.com/page.asp?id=tempc83 )

I'd always been told that Peco's track design was an unholy compromise between British 00 and American H0 and incorrect for both but it turns out that they are remarkably accurate for European (well French at least) main line track with 60cm sleeper spacing. The only odd thing are the rail fixings; typical practice for Vignoles (flat bottom)  rail is to use track screws screwed down onto the web with six pre-drilled holes in each sleeper, but Peco seem to have based theirs on elastic mounts then being introduced for modern CWR track.

The other things that our counterparts the other side of the channel seem aware of in Peco turnouts are the non prototypical tie bar mechanism and the plastic check rails and there have been several articles and postings on upgrading these. I have though seen no negative comment on their pointwork geometry which also makes me wonder whether, having effectively decided to make H0 track, they nipped across the channel for the prototype. This is of course cold comfort for 00 modellers but very useful for those of us working in European H0. 

 

One thing worth remembering is that, at the time that Peco introduced Streamline, British manufacturerers were under intense pressure to export their products- remember "Export or Die"; we'll probably never know but I wonder if that influenced Sidney Pritchard's thinking.

 

Sidney Pritchard was, of course, very friendly with J-L Fournereau, who, apart from founding and publishing Loco Revue, was a very capable engineer who produced model railway equipment. Is it perhaps possible that the engineering work for Streamline was actually done abroad?

[hayfield]

 I have not experimented with this track building method, all my handbuilt track is done the 'old way', rail directly soldered to copperclad.

 

I'll be frank here, I straight up don't trust claims for longevity and operational robustness unless properly qualified.

 

The Peco point still works fault free after thirty years installed in various locations, and having accrued circa a million duty cycles of loco plus train going over, whichever route is the principal running road. (Slow motion motors or wire in tube operation only, no solenoid 'bangers' allowed!)

 

Soldered construction track will fail within five years given this work out. (I operate a lot by most people's standards, two or more hours a day, every day I am home.)

 

It will be some years before I can give a verdict on the longevity of solvent assembled chaired style hand built track, better get on with making some and devising a suitable life test rig.

 

 

Soldered copperclad construction runs the risk of eventual breakage due to environmental temperature changes much more than Peco or any track constructed of plastic chairs or spikes that allow for some expansion/contraction movement of the rail against the sleepers.

 

I would say this is as much responsible for the longevity of Peco track as anything else connected with the design or construction.

 

I have noted and understood both of your concerns about both construction methods,also I have turnouts which have been built using the copperclad and chaired construction methods as well as Peco products being 30 + years old. Despite of my lack of understanding of both track construction and prototype matters other than perhaps the odd minor repair (tiebars) on the odd point, all 3 have stood the test of time. I did have some copperclad turnouts which were built nearer 50 years old (if not older) which I sold a few years back which were still working very well.

 

The weak point was the tiebars, their manufacture and fitting. This was really down to the way these were made using the old SMP methods and tiebars. Many have commented in the past of problems on older Peco points, so one could say even RTR turnouts may need the slight repair every now and then.

 

Let's look at now and the methods and materials we use today

 

Gone is the switch plaid filed to a point and soldered to a small metal ring with resin cored solder

Also gone is the fragile Paxoline strips, which have been replaced with thicker and stronger fibreglass strips, soldered using liquid flux and various designs of tiebars having much stronger and or flexible attachments

 

Moving on to plastic chaired track, which allows the rail to move through the chairs far more than a Peco point. The problem in the past has been with the very thin plastic timbers. This is now been resolved for years with the advent of the thicker timbers. Also now it is common to use ply timbers, again the chairs will weld themselves to the ply providing the correct solvent is used

 

Point motors has been a problem with both construction methods when old fashioned solenoid motors were used, newer methods are far more friendly. 

[Pacific231G]

Sidney Pritchard was, of course, very friendly with J-L Fournereau, who, apart from founding and publishing Loco Revue, was a very capable engineer who produced model railway equipment. Is it perhaps possible that the engineering work for Streamline was actually done abroad?

I'm not sure if Ets.Fournereau ever produced track but I've always thought it significant that RM was published from very early on by a company whose main business became track and has always emphasised layout building  whereas L-R was founded by Fournereau when his main business was as model loco and rolling stock builder and has always had more emphasis on converting, super-detailing and reviewing locos and rolling stock. 

You can see that emphasis fairly clearly by comparing RM, MRN and MRC during the 1950s and 1960s. Of course publishing became a major profit centre for Peco fairly quickly and became Fournereau's main business fairly early in the post war era but magazines do tend to follow their own traditions.

[Jeff Smith]

Peco track is a system. The points are strong enough to tolerate the solenoid motors, and in fact probably benefit electrically in terms of making a 'firm' contact between the point rail and stock rail, assuming no additional gapping and wiring is added. The many joints using rail joiners, especially if using Setrack, probably ensures sufficient expansion/contraction allowance.

 

I built a layout in P4 using plastic chairs and ply-wood sleepers 30 years ago. It is still intact but in fairness has never had much running but did survive shipping to the US so probably went through some temperature extremes. The points use Tortoise slow acting motors with dropper wires through slots in the baseboard to substantial tie-bars. Cosmetic tie-bars are fitted (from Alan Gibson - not sure if they are still available) consisting of heat-shrink tubing with brass wire each end soldered to the point blades. Personally I would not use styrene sleepers as it would be difficult to adjust the gauge if necessary.

[rue_d_etropal]

some interesting discussion. I was not aware of the possible French connection, but as a reader of Voie Libre magazine(published by Loco Revue), it does explain the similarity between RM and the French magazines.

All I was originally asking was why the radius appeared to be recorded so different to what it actually is. Not a few mm, or a fraction of a degree. Anyway it does not matter, I use what I see on the Peco template.

The durability of Peco points is one thing that appeals to me. No point(pun not intended!) having something that looks 'perfect' if if can't be used for what it is intended. I often buy second hand Peco points, as they are that durable, but have noticed a few things that are possibly a backward step. The way the old point blades were fitted to the tiebar, was by a fitting that gripped the tiebar.but the current one is a simple piece of metal through the tiebar. The current design can fail , but is probably less costly to produce.

As a member of a club with an old layout(over 30 years old) which has hand built track, I can confirm it does look better, and interestingly is more tolerant of different wheel standards than some modern track, but that is possibly because of lack of chairs which hold the rail. We tend to have more problems with back to backs on new Hornby models than any other models. One thing though, the points are in effect cosmetic, although they are designed to operate and can do so, but failures in wiring and contacts can result. Also repeated movement of point blades would probably result in breakages, and it is not worth the trouble.

If someone wants to build their own points, I have no issue, but they have to be prepared to maintain it, especially if it is an exhibition layout. Most people are not aware of the inaccuracies in OO models, let alone even care. but if someone does not work properly or breaks easily they will be at front of queue complaining. Peco have produced track, which is durable for over 50 years, but have also produced track for those ho are more concerned about the look. On the whole that has been at the detriment of durability, especially when you try to take up track as I have done on many occasions.

For the projects I am working on at the moment, sleeper spacing does not matter at all as it is covered, but I did obtain some old Formaway flexi track last year, and had thought it was ON30 until I looked closer. I will probably use it on one mini layout I am planning(with normal sleepered track) as it does actually look a bit better, but only tend to notice that when comparing it directly. Some of the finer rail(eg code 75) does look nice, but it would mean I would have to either only buy newer models(not really a problem sometimes), or have to rewheel some older model(which I would prefer not to have to do).

[RichardS]

Re post #59 by Crewlisle

 

Hi Crewlisle. I'm not sure that I should be endowed with 'heroic virtue' nor that some of the other contributors to this thread have been particularly sanctimonious. Opinion is not sanctimony unless hypocritical and the debates on this thread have not been such, in my estimation at least. Yes people have been perhaps precise and unyielding (but see some of the other threads on OO-SF in particular for vigorous debate.) But by and large I feel it's been informed people debating accuracy of a product which some might say is marketed as something which it is not.

 

I don't think anybody is particularly bothered really about it really as most people accept that PECO track is a system designed to serve a purpose; which it does rather well - witness the lack of competition. It's just debate at the end of the day.

 

All model making is a compromise, a humungous compromise. Even those producing the finest models have made enormous compromises to do so. Nobody can scale down real life. What modellers make are miniature representations of real things. And however good the item is it remains a representation - nothing more. It is not a scale replica.

 

Now that is not to say that some models do not look more like the real subject than others, nor that they should not do so. If that was the case 'Flying Scotsman,' which must inhabit more train sets/model railways/ dioramas than any other subject, would still be an 0-4-0 of indeterminate origin. It is only because modellers demanded more accurate subjects that the changes were made by manufacturers. If customers are happy to buy something that is wrong then why incur costs by implementing change? (no answer required) 

 

The question that each and every modeller must ask themselves, and also accept the answer to (lest they cease activity), is what degree of compromise they can tolerate. This could arise for many  reasons - time, money, modelling vision, modelling ability, opportunity, taste, preferences and so forth. Some will be fastidious, others will be 'slap happy, most will be in the middle somewhere but all will comprise the broad spectrum that makes up this extraordinary hobby that brings so many elements of crafting together.

 

Personally, I aspire to a 'finer' level of modelling although I have yet to achieve it. In fact such aspiration holds my own activities back. But I could not compromise to produce a model that was in my estimation 'less fine' than I could tolerate' just in order to have a model. There would be no reward for me in spending my time creating it, nor in the finished product.

 

But I do believe that, whatever a person produces and provided they have tried their best within the constraints they face - whatever they may be - they should never be decried or destructively criticised. Conversely most people are not idiots (a few might be) and they will know their own standards and it is just as wrong be over complimentary when it is clear that they know there are shortcomings. It's just a case of being realistic and inclusive.

 

Ok back to PECO track. I don't know what it is. HO maybe, 1/87 maybe, not scale and so forth but it looks like railway track, it works like railway track, and that's what most people want because they want to run trains.

 

Yes, if PECO produced their streamline track with a plastic base where the sleepers were further apart and with bullhead rail supported in chairs a lot of people would be very happy. In fact some of the scratch-builders would cease their activities (ie: they could compromise more). There'd still be the non-compromisers who would want different angles of points or chairs or whatever, and they'd still build their own. But that wouldn't matter.

 

And of course if people (who don't make their own track) were really unhappy with PECO track they'd not buy it, set up their own company to produce something they prefer, and next year become millionaires, Rodney. They don't. (because they compromise). (Remember, nobody has to compromise; it's totally voluntary)

 

Life is too short. Do what makes you happy. And stuff everybody else!  (My GP told me that last bit!) :-)  (Of course I have to compromise on that)

 

Regards

Richard