Peco OO/HO large radius point measurement query

[Junctionmad]

Personally I find PECO track fine , UNTIL , you put a 4mm model on it. And it looks especially wrong when you compare it visually to more " correct" 00 gauge track like C& L.

 

I think, unless , you are a " out of the box modeller " and your layout comes complete with a " ducking giraffe " , most modellers would like to improve the look of the track in 00. These days with the advent of several alternative 00 tracks , it's entirely possible, especially if you ignore the cost. However with the current price of rolling stock, investing time and money in better track is comparatively economical. The resulting appearance is vastly improved.

 

This is not an argument to go to EM or P4, which is a different decision altogether

[Ravenser]

. 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).

 

 

I think this is almost certainly a misapprehension

 

There is no difference between the flangeway clearances on Streamline code 100 and Streamline code 75. Pre 2000 Hornby will run very happily on Streamline  code 75

 

The only problem I know about with Streamline code75 was that some of the earlier Lima production had very deep flanges which bumped along the sleepers on code 75. But I'm confident that anything by Lima produced after about 1990 will be fine, and quite a lot of Lima from the 80s will be fine, too.

 

Wrenn wheels had flanges that were too deep as well , but Wrenn stopped volume production long ago (was it 1988 when the Basildon factory shut down?)

 

There is something of a myth around that code 75 is "much finer" and somehow problematic and that RTR models won't run on it for some reason. Absolutely everything produced RTR in the last 25 years will run on it, and most of the RTR produced in the 15 years before that will do, as well.

 

I am not sure where this idea of code 75 as "problematic" and needing stock to be rewheeled came from, but it is basically wrong, and needs to be exorcised 

 

(Replacement wheelsets for Lima rolling stock are available from Replica if needed - Lima wheelsets were 24.5mm over pin-points , in line with the NEM standard rather than 26mm normal in British 4mm. However if you have French modelling interests you may be able to source better 16.5mm gauge wheelsets from a Continental source)

[Ravenser]

I think, unless , you are a " out of the box modeller " and your layout comes complete with a " ducking giraffe " , most modellers would like to improve the look of the track in 00. These days with the advent of several alternative 00 tracks , it's entirely possible, especially if you ignore the cost. However with the current price of rolling stock, investing time and money in better track is comparatively economical. The resulting appearance is vastly improved.

 

 

I'm not sure what alternative ready-made OO track you have in mind? There is Tillig , but there is very little improvement in appearance, because it is still HO track. The new 83line range from Peco is US HO track to NMRA standards, and looks even more wrong in OO

 

SMP and C+L flexible track is available , but no matching pointwork (I wouldn't recommend C+L to anyone who is worried about using code 75 though - the moulded chairs are very prominent, and old stock with coarse wheels and deep flanges will almost certainly end up bouncing along the chairs . SMP track is more forgiving.)

 

While "built to order" point work is available from Marcway , it costs about twice the price of Peco. Marcway don't promote their product very much , so many people aren't aware of it. However this will not accept pre2000 Hornby wheels , though it will accept Bachmann, Replica, Mainline and Airfix, and Lima so long as the flanges aren't too deep

[BG John]

My Peco Code 75 is starting to look much better now I'm removing alternate sleepers, due to converting my part built OO layout to O-16.5. Still far from perfect, but deep ballast and grass should cure much of that .

[Junctionmad]

I'm not sure what alternative ready-made OO track you have in mind? There is Tillig , but there is very little improvement in appearance, because it is still HO track. The new 83line range from Peco is US HO track to NMRA standards, and looks even more wrong in OO

 

SMP and C+L flexible track is available , but no matching pointwork (I wouldn't recommend C+L to anyone who is worried about using code 75 though - the moulded chairs are very prominent, and old stock with coarse wheels and deep flanges will almost certainly end up bouncing along the chairs . SMP track is more forgiving.)

 

While "built to order" point work is available from Marcway , it costs about twice the price of Peco. Marcway don't promote their product very much , so many people aren't aware of it. However this will not accept pre2000 Hornby wheels , though it will accept Bachmann, Replica, Mainline and Airfix, and Lima so long as the flanges aren't too deep

 

Unless you have 40 year old RTR stock , c&l is perfectly fine and even then a quick run around with a soldering iron will handle the 40 year old RTR flanges.

 

Again points costing " twice " peco again in the context of what people have tied up in rolling stock is really a relative pittance.

 

Remember the track is a model too

[hayfield]

Unless you have 40 year old RTR stock , c&l is perfectly fine and even then a quick run around with a soldering iron will handle the 40 year old RTR flanges.

 

Again points costing " twice " peco again in the context of what people have tied up in rolling stock is really a relative pittance.

 

Remember the track is a model too

 

 

I have just come back from Scaleforum and have seen some wonderful modelling. Some layouts are quite large others very small. Lots of demonstrators who are happy to chat about the subject they are showing, even a continental narrow gauge layout of a larger scale than 4 mm scale. Of course trackwork to a very high standard

 

Back on the subject of track, most of the track available in the RTR market is to all intent and purpose H0 scale and leaning more to modern image. As stated there are three alternatives in 00 gauge which are to 4 mm scale, and turnouts made from copperclad from one source, though I believe not necessarily built to standard railway designs. This is a shame as GEM had a 4 mm scale RTR trackwork system as I believe did Formway and Peco's initial products were to 4 mm scale 00 gauge and I believe bullhead rail was available

 

I think that most modellers who want 4 mm scale track even if compromising with the use of 00 gauge will have stock which would work on SMP, C&L or Exactoscale track, the main stumbling block is lack of turnouts and crossings either in RTR or easy to build kits. I believe there is a large market out there if someone could provide a RTR product or crack the problem of an easy to build system at a reasonable cost. Will it happen ? I doubt it at the moment, in the future ? 3D printing may be one of the solutions

 

What has any of this got to do with the initial question, not much. But with the thread now on its fourth page and 80+ replies looks like the interest a better product to a 4 mm scale is there and more importantly folk are starting to look at track in a different way.

[Ravenser]

Unless you have 40 year old RTR stock , c&l is perfectly fine and even then a quick run around with a soldering iron will handle the 40 year old RTR flanges.

 

Again points costing " twice " peco again in the context of what people have tied up in rolling stock is really a relative pittance.

 

Remember the track is a model too

 

Unfortunately this isn't true. There've been various reports of this issue over the years with modern RTR - not vintage Triang and Wrenn. Pinning down the problem has been elusive - I've seen it suggested that possibly one mould or mould impression out of several may be damaged or in some way defective , as an explanation of why the problem should be hit and miss "Now you see it, now you don't".

 

To add a personal example - I used to be involved with a club project where there was traditional bullhead track on one section of the layout. We were instructed by officers that C+L had to be used "because SMP isn't acceptable these days" despite pointing out the potential issue. And after that part of the layout was brought into use the layout co-leader told me that we were getting stock wheels striking the chairs of the C+L flexible track on the branch....

 

It's 4 or 5 years since I stopped being involved, and I'm a bit hazy as to exactly what stock was implicated . But since the layout was post-privatisation and DCC , we weren't running vintage stock - I don't think anything with a Ringfield motor ever ran on it , and a ViTrains 37  or my 155 was probably the "worst case scenario"

 

I use SMP track myself, for precisely this reason

 

(No such problems were experienced with the Exactoscale Fastrack sleeper base , though you wouldn't expect code 83 flatbottom rail plain track to be an issue) 

 

Six or seven years ago 9 points (including a slip) cost me £225 from Marcway. Presumably it's a bit more now. While I was willing to pay for it (and had plenty of cash  at the time to fund the purchase) others may feel differently , given their own circumstances. It's probably much more of an issue with a large layout - remember that stall-motor point motors are entirely proven but many people stick to solenoids on cost grounds, especially on a large layout.

[philsandy]

Interesting discussion.

As someone who started modelling again 3 years ago after a 35 year break, what immediately struck me was the superb detail and appearance of the locos and rolling stock now being produced by the likes of Hornby and Bachmann. Accurate scale models of the real things. Yet the track work that was readily available was not.

I don't use Peco, but as people have said, I'm sure it is well made and it does work. It's the appearance that is the problem.

 

Plain track is not the problem, C&L or SMP looks great, but I don't think many model shops stock it, you have to mail order it, and that's probably why people use Peco, they buy what is available at their local model shop, and also if you use C&L or SMP track there are no "out of the box" points that will match up with them.

 

I'm sure Peco have looked in to this, and concluded there is not a big enough demand for them to manufacture a realistic looking set of point work.

It seems that modellers demand great looking accurate locos, but are not as demanding about the track work being as realistic. 

 

[Ravenser]

 

I'm sure Peco have looked in to this, and concluded there is not a big enough demand for them to manufacture a realistic looking set of point work.

It seems that modellers demand great looking accurate locos, but are not as demanding about the track work being as realistic. 

 

It's more likely that they have concluded that they would be investing to take sales from themselves, and that in the absence of a competitor they can simply stonewall all British demands for an improved product. This is one of the classic effects of monopoly or dominant position - the purchaser is forced to buy the product it suits the manufacturer to make, rather than a product that matches his requirement. Think Trabant...... 

[Pacific231G]

Out of curiosity I picked up some very old products that were in the 50p box at the Oxford show yesterday. These included some Peco Individulay point plans, a Pecoway Point Pack for a three foot radius left or right hand point, a Peco-Indidulay track pack, and a couple of Acro three foot radius point kitds. They also had a couple of three foot radius Pecoway points and the geometery of these (though not the sleepering of course) seems identical to Peco's current medium radius point though the crossing and check rail gaps appear to be 1.5mm and all the Peco products are shown as being to B.R.M.S.B. standards. The point plans are quoted as being "Standard 00 16.5 mm gauge (used also for EM 18mm gauge) presumably with the aid of appropriate gauges.

I don't have time today but will scan and post these in due course.  

 

It's more likely that they have concluded that they would be investing to take sales from themselves, and that in the absence of a competitor they can simply stonewall all British demands for an improved product. This is one of the classic effects of monopoly or dominant position - the purchaser is forced to buy the product it suits the manufacturer to make, rather than a product that matches his requirement. Think Trabant...... 

The first may well be true- though it's arguable that 83 Line would be doing that in the N. American prototype market, but they are hardly some evil monopoly destroying all competitors (which they've never been unwilling to review and take adverts from in the magazines they own) .  

 

Given that Peco continued to produce kits and material for poitnwork to B.R.M.S.B. standards for some time after introducing Streamline, they may simply have found that this was a niche market and there was no point in competing with the likes of SMP.  Formoway was AFAIK made with 00 spaced sleepering so, if there was a large market for such RTL pointwork, wouldn't that still be in production? 

Despite what's being expressed here I suspect that a lot of modellers do prefer the "longer look" of Streamline track. Looking at the earlier examples I've just obtained as well as some more modern SMP examples, a three foot radius turnout with BRMSB sleepering looks awfully short !! It's surprising

[martin_wynne]

Despite what's being expressed here I suspect that a lot of modellers do prefer the "longer look" of Streamline track. Looking at the earlier points a three foot radius turnout with BRMSB sleepering looks awfully short !!

 

+1

 

I have said the same thing in previous topics on this subject. Here is a 3ft-3in (39") radius turnout with BRMSB timbering. It looks ideal for the back of the gasworks, but hardly something to be found in the East Coast Main Line.

 

My guess is that Peco have previously produced samples, and done some market research comparing this with Streamline.

 

Be careful what you wish for.

 

 

Martin.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

It's more likely that they have concluded that they would be investing to take sales from themselves, and that in the absence of a competitor they can simply stonewall all British demands for an improved product...

Ths probably is the reasoning, and it is the way that numerous 'solidly successful' British enterprises have been blindsided into failure in the past. For all the robustness of the RTR track, Peco don't even offer a competent point motor to accompany it. 

 

There is a potential opportunity in track at present, to create an enhanced value track system with plug and play potential for DCC; (and other systems) all points with an integral and invisible servo motor and decoder, extra conductors built in for points supply or track detection circuits. The risk is that sooner or later a 'Happy Sunshine Products' of some place we have never heard of will snatch up this opportunity, and take the world market for model track before the news even reaches Devon. And because they have done their research there will be track base and rail section variants Chinese HO, Japanese HO, US HO, European HO, better proportioned UK OO...

[hayfield]

Peter

 

What era and region will you be basing your layout on, as that is a good place to start the decision process

[RichardS]

Maybe there is a solution to the age old RTR 16.5mm OO track conundrum - Crowd Funding. If sufficient folk feel sufficiently strongly about the lack of OO points why don't they put their money where their mouths are and set up their own track company or commission some production? Just a thought.  ​

 

Regards

Richard​​

[Il Grifone]

I think this is almost certainly a misapprehension

 

There is no difference between the flangeway clearances on Streamline code 100 and Streamline code 75. Pre 2000 Hornby will run very happily on Streamline  code 75

 

The only problem I know about with Streamline code75 was that some of the earlier Lima production had very deep flanges which bumped along the sleepers on code 75. But I'm confident that anything by Lima produced after about 1990 will be fine, and quite a lot of Lima from the 80s will be fine, too.

 

Wrenn wheels had flanges that were too deep as well , but Wrenn stopped volume production long ago (was it 1988 when the Basildon factory shut down?)

 

There is something of a myth around that code 75 is "much finer" and somehow problematic and that RTR models won't run on it for some reason. Absolutely everything produced RTR in the last 25 years will run on it, and most of the RTR produced in the 15 years before that will do, as well.

 

I am not sure where this idea of code 75 as "problematic" and needing stock to be rewheeled came from, but it is basically wrong, and needs to be exorcised 

 

(Replacement wheelsets for Lima rolling stock are available from Replica if needed - Lima wheelsets were 24.5mm over pin-points , in line with the NEM standard rather than 26mm normal in British 4mm. However if you have French modelling interests you may be able to source better 16.5mm gauge wheelsets from a Continental source)

 

Luckily most Lima axles are 2mm diameter and most British modern British wheels will fit the axle - preferably 12mm as Lima are 11.5 mm diameter (1 metre in H0 scale) and the vehicle's ride height could be affected. It is a bit of a struggle to remove the uninsulated wheel from the axle and it might be necessary to sacrifice it. (Not a great loss!)

 

Probably problems with running models on scale track is due to sloppy back to back settings - they are intended to run on their own track.....

 

The BRMSB flangeway gap should be 1.25mm, but Peco could possibly have widened it slightly to ease passage of Hornby Dublo wheels (14mm check span is a bit tight for a nominal (very) 14.2mm back-to back wheelset). Formoway sleeper spacing is a bit narrow for British practice, but passable. It disappeared from the market when Farish decided to concentrate of N gauge and stopped production of their 00 products. (It is possible the solid base to the crossings (causing a bumpy ride for some wheels) and the rather coarse appearance of their 'Liveway' range* affected sales

 

Streamline was originally designed to accept wheelsets ranging from BRMSB to Tri-ang and had a 1.4mm flangeway as a result. It has I understand, been tightened up a bit since. Certainly I find NMRA (RP25-110) wheels run well on it. (I did have one set that played up (not sure why), but the solution was simple and involved a bin! - they were plastic, so this was not a great hardship.)

 

* Live crossings seem to present insuperable wiring problems for some reason! Dublo 2 rail track is cheap...... (and delicate thanks to a polystyrene sleeper base).

I intend to rebuild the crossings of my Formoway, when I get around to my British Layout (this was planned for a RMweb challenge a few years ago, but is still in the planning stage*), to eliminate dead crossings, plastic wing and check rails and that bumpy flangeway.

 

*So many trains, so little time........

[rue_d_etropal]

Richard, I think you are correct, and if people want something new or different, then crowdfunding is the way to go.

On another issue, well actually an Atlas HO diamond crossing. I got one for a large scale narrow gauge layout. Some old Lima bogie locos ran through , no problem, but a newer Fleischmann Magic Train diesel loco would not. The gap between rail and checkrail, was too narrow and I did manage to file it so it was just about OK. Seems odd, I don't think it is just the back to backs but also thickness of wheel. Anyway a similar Bachmann HO crossing was no problem. I did wonder if I had a code 83 crossing, but packet definitely said code 100. Pity, as I won't be buying any more Atlas crossings. Both Bachmann and Atlas do a variety of sharper angled crossings which are very useful for small layouts. Only thing with the Bachmann EZ track is having to remove grey base.

 

Thing is all I want, as do most people, is track which is OK for their trains, and many people have trains of various ages. Sometimes it is possible to replace wheels(Peco wheels used to be good replacements for Lima, but I don't think they are now produced). Bachmann seem to do different wheels for Lilliput to UK and USA models, ideal for my rough narrow gauge track. The only post Triang wheels I have had problems with are the old Hornby Silver Seal square axled wheels. Some of these even got through to China. The Calder Valley DMU can have problems on some track. Just remembered also, some of the split axle Triang wheels also continued I think( small crane wagon?), but they seem to be OK, so maybe they have been modified.

 

Something else I noticed when I was measuring the Peco point, was that the sleeper spacing was very slightly different to that on flexi and Setrack curves and straights. The plain track works out with sleepers every 7mm, but the points are nearer 7.2mm, but not consistent. To the naked eye they look the same though. It doesn't bother me one iota, just something I have had to take into account.

[Ravenser]

Luckily most Lima axles are 2mm diameter and most British modern British wheels will fit the axle - preferably 12mm as Lima are 11.5 mm diameter (1 metre in H0 scale) and the vehicle's ride height could be affected. It is a bit of a struggle to remove the uninsulated wheel from the axle and it might be necessary to sacrifice it. (Not a great loss!)

 

Probably problems with running models on scale track is due to sloppy back to back settings - they are intended to run on their own track.....

 

The BRMSB flangeway gap should be 1.25mm, but Peco could possibly have widened it slightly to ease passage of Hornby Dublo wheels (14mm check span is a bit tight for a nominal (very) 14.2mm back-to back wheelset). ......

 

 

Streamline was originally designed to accept wheelsets ranging from BRMSB to Tri-ang and had a 1.4mm flangeway as a result. It has I understand, been tightened up a bit since. Certainly I find NMRA (RP25-110) wheels run well on it. (I did have one set that played up (not sure why), but the solution was simple and involved a bin! - they were plastic, so this was not a great hardship.)

 

 

.......

 

It appears from AndyID's measurements that the original flangeway gap on Peco Streamline code 100 was 1.55mm That would have been to allow the passage of 1960s Triang wheels with a 13.5mm nominal B2B. Setrrack in the late 80s certainly still had 1.55mm flangeways

 

Streamline code 100 and code 75 is now supposed to have 1.39mm flangeways, and as far as I can measure on various examples, it does. This includes a recently obtained code 100 live frog point. I suspect code 75 Streamline has always been to this value. This allows pre 2000 Hornby (back to the early 70s) to run . Obviously Hornby Dublo and Wrenn, with a nominal 14.2mm B2B would then run. I agree that tight clearances at the the check span are problematic - in another context I have real concerns about working with check spans clearances down to 0.1mm on a routine basis

 

In the case of Lima , back to backs were pretty consitantly 14.5mm - it was not the B2B but the flange depth that rules out code 75 , and this also applies to Wrenn and presumably Hornby Dublo : it won't run on Streamline code 75 , even though Hornby wheelsd witrh narrower B2B will.. 

 

The old Hornby "Silver Seal" plastic wheels are notoriously poor, and well worth binning . Modern Hornby wheels are very different 

[Pacific231G]

Having been told for years that Peco's points had a weird unprototypical geometry I decided to delve a little.

These are four turnouts and two templates for point construction all of nominally three foot radius. 

The Peco Individulay and Pecoway examples are presumably from the 1950s or early 1960s and still have the original Pritchard logo.

The Streamline code 100 is a fairly old one so the check and crossing clearances are larger than on the current offering. (All my newer code 100s are laid and ballasted and I don't think it would do my scanner much good if I dumped a layout on it !!)

 

 

I've tried to line up the noses and though the sleepering is of course closer  the only difference I can see in the geometry is that the Peco points, especially the two Streamline examples, have slightly longer switch rails so I think a rather easier lead.

The other myth seems to be that a crossing made using Peco points straight out of the box produces an overly wide six foot way compared with "better" track. It does but so do any points made to BRMSB (or NEM) standards including the SMP example. I've got a couple of SMP point kits and these come with a gauging tool that is the right thickness to use as a feeler gauge for check and crossing clearances so I'll try that on these points.

[Chimer]

Maybe there is a solution to the age old RTR 16.5mm OO track conundrum - Crowd Funding. If sufficient folk feel sufficiently strongly about the lack of OO points why don't they put their money where their mouths are and set up their own track company or commission some production? Just a thought.  ​

 

Regards

Richard​​

 

Why?  Because there's not a snowball in hell's chance they could agree on the standards to be used - starting with choosing between flatbottom and bullhead rail and going on exponentially from there. 

 

Which is probably why Peco don't bother, nothing they did would please more than 10% of the people who aren't happy with Streamline in the first place.  In my opinion   ....

[RichardS]

Hi 'Chimer' post #94.

 

Exactly! :-)

 

regards

Richard

[kevinlms]

Why?  Because there's not a snowball in hell's chance they could agree on the standards to be used - starting with choosing between flatbottom and bullhead rail and going on exponentially from there. 

 

Which is probably why Peco don't bother, nothing they did would please more than 10% of the people who aren't happy with Streamline in the first place.  In my opinion   ....

I remember reading that CJF, said exactly the same thing decades ago, the range of potential choices was just 'too hard'. Has anything changed?

[Junctionmad]

Why?  Because there's not a snowball in hell's chance they could agree on the standards to be used - starting with choosing between flatbottom and bullhead rail and going on exponentially from there. 

 

Which is probably why Peco don't bother, nothing they did would please more than 10% of the people who aren't happy with Streamline in the first place.  In my opinion   ....

Absolutely. Far too much " confusion " abounds in 00 and way too much nit picking goes on for anyone to be happy

[hayfield]

You would not say that to someone building a loco and adding as much detail as they require. Or pick on a builder who still likes to build whitemetal kits rather than more detailed etched ones.

 

If one wants to build an exact replica of a historic track system, then all the track must be hand built irrespective of gauge chosen. Most are happy ignoring the lack of keys, wrong type of chair, panel length and true variable sleeper spacing and size of sleeper, and just settle on flexible/ready to lay plain track. This is mainly a cost consideration but also a time issue as well

 

When we get to turnouts, again few have any knowledge on how the turnouts actually look. A few of us do like where possible to use the correct types of chair within the turnouts, others are happy just to chop up standard chairs to fit. Others decide to use a soldered construction method and are happy with the looks rather than the fine detail. We are looking at a very large range of options available to the modeller and to what lever a modeller takes their track building to is entirely up to them.

 

The confusion arises because some are not willing to take the time to look up and understand the options available, compounded by others trying to muddy the waters with mainly unfounded drivel designed to spoil the transfer of information

 

The retail trade could and should do better, they could not get away offering rolling stock using the wrong scale (yes 00 is 4 mm scale not 3.5 mm scale) and with some parts being the wrong profile/shape. Track is still stuck in the 60's as far as the offering on the table from the trade, in fact there was a better choice of 00 gauge track then, some much closer to scale.

[philsandy]

 

The retail trade could and should do better, they could not get away offering rolling stock using the wrong scale (yes 00 is 4 mm scale not 3.5 mm scale) and with some parts being the wrong profile/shape. Track is still stuck in the 60's as far as the offering on the table from the trade, in fact there was a better choice of 00 gauge track then, some much closer to scale.

 

I think you're right.

Certainly looking at the photo of those Pecoway points in post #93. The sleeper spacing is better (maybe a tad too far apart), but they look more realistic than what they are producing today. 

[Silver Sidelines]

Well said, far too much nit picking!

Absolutely. Far too much " confusion " abounds in 00 and way too much nit picking goes on for anyone to be happy

Another vote for Peco.

 

Ray

 

Some of Peco's latest offerings