Peco OO/HO large radius point measurement query

[Pacific231G]

On 30/09/2015 at 16:53, Andy Hayter said:

Pacific 231G wrote:

 

I also don't think you can fairly accuse Peco of perpetrating some kind of "con" on the British modelling public. Though the long look was mentioned in the early publicity for Streamline I can't recall any mention of it by Peco in recent years and if you look a their website the company itself is completely frank about it

 

"Trackwork as manufactured and packaged by PECO is classified as being suitable for both HO and OO but strictly speaking is designed and made to HO standards, i.e. standard gauge for track is       4 feet 8½ inches and that to HO scale 1:87 = 16.5mm.  For various reasons, the popular scale used for British outline models as manufactured by Hornby, Bachmann and others is OO but more or less from inception have used HO track.  Technically speaking this is incorrect, being over 2mm too narrow but the majority of model railway enthusiasts have accepted this anomaly.  The scale of HO is used virtually in every country around the world other than Great Britain."

 

Unquote

 

and yet interestingly the current edition of Loco Revue (French equivalent of RM) has a letter complaining about Peco track as an anglicised 1:76 abomination that is nowhere near the prototypes.  [i assume he has not seen the Bi-Block track].

 

It seems that while it may be possible to please some of the people some of the time, Peco are failing to please any of the discerning modellers any of the time.

 

 

I suspect that's more to do with some French anglophobe* than any real problem and it's likely to be a reaction to Peco's great popularity there. It is a great shame though as British railway modelling is very well respected in France and one of the few other places where 0 scale is 1:43.5 rather than 1:45 or 1:48.  

 

Peco track is so popular in France that several modular systems even specify it.  Loco-Revue have run a number of articles on superdetailed track that start with Peco code 75 track or points and I've never seen that for Roco or Tillig. Outside of narrow gauge and P87 circles,  hand laid track seems to be unusual in France though I have come across SMP being used for bullhead despite the over wide sleepers. 

 

I have also sometimes wondered whether Peco actually used SNCF track as their prototype as the sleeper size and spacing is spot on and the bi-bloc is totally French. I think though it's more that French railway practice has always been much closer to British than has any other mainland European railways and there's probably more bullhead rail still in service on the national network than here. The only thing that isn't quite right is the track fixing as French Vignoles (FB) rail track never AFAIK used chairs and, except for the more modern track, the rail is commonly fixed to wooden sleepers with coach bolts screwed into pre drilled holes. 

 

* A French contact once commented that the British think they hate the French for being arrogant, unfriendly and rude but it's really Parisians who are like that, and the rest of the French hate them too for the same reasons!! With one notable exception, and most French modellers I know also think he's obnoxious, I've never had anything but a warm welcome at French exhibitions, preserved railways, and clubs.

 

I didn't think J.P. Fournereau had ever done very much in H0,- which until the early 1950s was still called 00. Wasn't his modelling business entirely 0 as was his own layout. Also, if you look at Sidney Pritchard's patents model railway track was very much in there. Still it's an intriguing theory and I believe they were good friends.

Peco wasn't the only British company to make its 16.5 mm gauge track to H0 specifications. Wrenn did the same for their "finescale" range which had been designed specifically for export.

[Il Grifone]

That would delight me if the track was bullhead as it would be perfect for modelling French "double champignon" track in H0. However, it probably wouldn't suit those 00 modellers who feel, with some justification, that the best compromise is to use sleepers and timbers that are to 4mm scale in width and spacing, so the track looks right from the side when a train is on it, but adusted in length to allow for the narrow gauge. That may make the sleepers look a bit short and fat when viewed from directly above (but how often do you see full size track from directly above?) but I'm not sure whether that's at all apparent when seen from a more nornal viewing angle. It seems to be the approach adopted by SMP.

Peco sleepers are close to scale in 1:87 scale and it is possible if a bit tedious to widen their spacing for plain track for older or less heavily used lines or I guess to British steam era sleepering - a simple jig helps enormously with that. points are more of a challenge.

 

BTW Does anyone know when and why Formoway disappeared?

 

Formoway disappeared when Farish decided to concentrate on their N gauge range - some time in the mid seventies IIRC. Luckily I have some in storage for 'the layout', when it gets started..........  There is also some EM handbuilt pointwork and SMP plain track.........  (Even this has the sleepers too close together.)

[BG John]

Formoway disappeared when Farish decided to concentrate on their N gauge range - some time in the mid seventies IIRC. Luckily I have some in storage for 'the layout', when it gets started..........  There is also some EM handbuilt pointwork and SMP plain track.........  (Even this has the sleepers too close together.)

They probably wouldn't get away with the adverts for it now. Two identical photos of prototype track with the words "Which is FORMOWAY?" between them. Printing one in black and white, and the other with a blue tint, never fooled me!

[Ravenser]

correct , and having hung ourselves by our own petard , were stuck with it.

 

The major drawback to introducing better 00 gauge track is 

 

(a ) Just exactly what point work standard would you adopt , probably DOGA- Intermediate, but the flange ways look wrong 

 

(b ) You still dont remove the need to hand build track 

 

(c ) Many modellers clearly dont care and are looking for the cheapest way to get trains running 

 

(d )  there are two many variations in the prototype to represent in a new RTR track work, bullhead, FB, wooden , concrete , chair types etc etc etc 

 

 

Not going to happen folks

 

you be better off speculating that w'ed get P4 RTR track  ( as least the standards are there and accepted !) 

 

a) You need track to a standard that will accept current RTR , and as much 20th century legacy RTR as you can get away with. That means you have 2 options : Peco's current Streamline flangeway , which will take everything made since about 1975 but is not a great fit for modern RTR, or DOGA OO Intermediate, which at its widest limit will take everything bar pre2000 Hornby, and which is a proper fit for modern RTR

 

Nothing else is a commercial option. Any standard that does not take all current/recent production RTR  without exception and without problems will mean that the points simply won't sell. (And obviously I favour the second option)

 

The question that decides what standard you the trackmaker go for is actually very simple, and doesn't require the establishment of a broad concensus of opinion. Does the manufacturer believe that a point through which pre2000 Hornby will not run  will be acceptable to a sufficient number of purchasers?  

 

I think it might be, on the basis that the people who are clinging onto old Hornby with coarse wheels, lo-fi detail and poor mechanisms are pretty well always totally committed to code 100 and generally insulfrog to boot. Therefore going for a proper standard which fits modern RTR wheels will not cost you any sales

 

As I've said before "Just how much backward compatibility do you need??" And of course the longer this goes on , the weaker the case for compromising the track. Isn't 20 years total backward compatibility enough for a high end range???

 

I don't hear people standing by flagship exhibition layouts like Leicester S Goods, Charwelton, Gresley Beat and the like, shaking their heads and saying "the flangeways really spoil this layout"

 

 

 

b) The great majority of OO modellers will never handbuild track. Therefore the argument about there still being a need to handbuild track cannot apply to them. Quite a few of those who handbuild track will never contemplate using a ready-made product (and therefore arguably don't really have the standing to argue against it - it's not for them, by their own choice). For them it's not a question of needing to build their own track, but of not wanting to do otherwise

 

c) Many modellers clearly aren't interested in better track. There is a considerable block of coarse-scale conservatives in OO, who reject anything other than code 100 (and generally insulfrog Code100) as "people simply trying to create unnecessary difficulties and stop others having fun"

 

But these people won't buy electrofrog. They won't even consider code75. Suggest to them that they might perhaps try building a wagon kit and they shake their head with a smile "Not for me, thanks!". They are not even very keen on highly detailed models , grumble about "all the bits breaking off", and call for less detailed more robust models at cheap prices. They think the Railroad range is a great idea.

 

None of which stops electrofrog points, code 75 , wagon kits and high quality RTR being viable as mass market products. I suspect the coarse-scale conservatives are 35-45% of OO , They buy a lot of their stock from the second hand trays , and I suspect they buy quite a bit of their track the same way

 

d) This is letting the best be an enemy of the good. Even in P4 , modellers are very happy to buy Exactoscale point kits, which strictly speaking are post war LNER practice only.

 

And since those modelling pre1945 are now less than a third of the hobby, a decent representation of BR steam practice will suit most people - and be a great deal better than present Streamline to the rest. Autocoach and gr'king have both said they would settle for decent FB

 

We already have 3 decent flexible tracks : SMP and C+L bullhead code70 , and Peco's new code75 concrete sleeper, which is a huge improvement on the code100 equivalent.  therefore it is simply a question of points , and there are only 2 real options: code70 BH to BR post-war practice, or code 75 FB on wood sleepers to BR practice. Concrete sleeper points only came in c2000, they are a very specialist post privatisation item, and Peco have done them already in code 75

 

(By the way other Peco Streamline does not look anything like modern British track in any scale. The sleepers are far too short and far too narrow.)

[Pacific231G]

They probably wouldn't get away with the adverts for it now. Two identical photos of prototype track with the words "Which is FORMOWAY?" between them. Printing one in black and white, and the other with a blue tint, never fooled me!

I always liked the photo of some station throat with an inset line drawing of a Formoway point.and the caption  "You can't tell the difference"  which just asked for the sentence to be completed with "..... so we'll have no trouble flogging you our track" 

[ozzyo]

Having read this thread from the first post, it has got so far off track (sorry), it all sounds so bad about Peco and their track. People buy there loco etc. from Hornby, Backman, etc. why not start asking them to produce decent track for them to run on that is more to 4mm (16.5 gauge) scale. After all selling the locos, wagons and coaches must make them a few bob?

 

OzzyO.

 

PS. the Peco track is not correct in 'O' the sleeper spacing is to close, but the size is about right.      

[Pacific231G]

 

(By the way other Peco Streamline does not look anything like modern British track in any scale. The sleepers are far too short and far too narrow.)

 I've just measured some Peco track with an H0 scale rule and a micrometer and found the sleeper spacing to be two feet centre to centre and the individual sleepers to be between 8'3" & 8'6" long and between 10.2 & 10.9 inches wide.

A modern British wooden sleeper is 2.6m (8ft 6ins) by nominally 250mm wide (traditionally 10 inches) which is no different from most of the sleepers used throughout Europe. 

 

I'm not sure how, in the H0 scale that Peco openly state they build their track to, that equates to "far too short and far too narrow" I make it maybe a bit too short, at most half a millimetre,and very fractionally too wide (but I needed a micrometer to detect that) I've no idea what tolerances wooden sleepers are actually cut to but I doubt if they're very precise.  

[Jeff Smith]

It would be interesting if someone could do the same measurements of the new code 75 concrete sleepers.

[hayfield]

 I've just measured some Peco track with an H0 scale rule and a micrometer and found the sleeper spacing to be two feet centre to centre and the individual sleepers to be between 8'3" & 8'6" long and between 10.2 & 10.9 inches wide.

A modern British wooden sleeper is 2.6m (8ft 6ins) by nominally 250mm wide (traditionally 10 inches) which is no different from most of the sleepers used throughout Europe. 

 

I'm not sure how, in the H0 scale that Peco openly state they build their track to, that equates to "far too short and far too narrow" I make it maybe a bit too short, at most half a millimetre,and very fractionally too wide (but I needed a micrometer to detect that) I've no idea what tolerances wooden sleepers are actually cut to but I doubt if they're very precise.  

 

David

 

When put against an 00 gauge piece of track the sleeper spacing is the most obvious thing, a closer look then the sleepers being a tad skinny. Those who work on the railway see the difference more than others

 

Points/turnouts is completely different, sleeper thickness is as glaring as is their spacing.

 

Code 100 rail is so over scale as well and of course rail fixings but no chairs. These are noticeable on both plain tracks and S&C

 

Is the average punter bothered or even realises anything is wrong, I doubt it. My own view is that clubs should strive for something better, though I guess I am in the minority with this view

[Joseph_Pestell]

David

 

When put against an 00 gauge piece of track the sleeper spacing is the most obvious thing, a closer look then the sleepers being a tad skinny. Those who work on the railway see the difference more than others

 

Points/turnouts is completely different, sleeper thickness is as glaring as is their spacing.

 

Code 100 rail is so over scale as well and of course rail fixings but no chairs. These are noticeable on both plain tracks and S&C

 

Is the average punter bothered or even realises anything is wrong, I doubt it. My own view is that clubs should strive for something better, though I guess I am in the minority with this view

 

As you say, if near the real trackwork, one is much more aware of the deficiencies of model track. But for many enthusiasts, the main experience of looking at track is through a telephoto lens. That completely distorts the appearance of the track and makes it look more like a piece of Streamline.

 

Clubs mostly have to appeal to a "broad church" if they are to survive. Unless they have the luxury of running several 4mm layouts (space, money, people, etc), they have to adopt a standard that is accessible to as many as possible.

[Pacific231G]

David

 

When put against an 00 gauge piece of track the sleeper spacing is the most obvious thing, a closer look then the sleepers being a tad skinny. Those who work on the railway see the difference more than others

 

Hi John

Compared to track built to 4mm/ft scale (albeit to the wrong gauge) that's bound to be the case because Streamline is made to a smaller scale of 3.5mm/ft. It was Ravenser's bald statement that it doesn't look anything like modern British track in ANY scale that I was challenging as in H0 scale it is pretty close to scale in its main dimensions. It's probably as good as track produced on a large scale for a mass market is likely to be as that's bound to involve compromise and while, the bodies of the vehicles running over it may be very well detailed these days, it's a heck of a lot closer to scale than most of the wheel profiles that run on it. Code 100 is of course well over scale but code 75 has been around for years.  

 

What IMHO don't bear such closer examimation are the rail fixings which seem to be half way between chairs and clips, the locking mechanisms used for pointwork (though they are well liked by a lot of users and fairly easy to replace with a "proper" tie bar) and the hinged switch blades.  If the reduced thickness of pointwork timbering is a problem then that's surely far worse with track like SMP Scaleway or that using PCB strip as their sleepers are even thinner.   

 

To get a transatlantic take on this you might find this interesting http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=56890

I'd always thought that Shinohara and ME were the "mutt's nuts" in American H0 circles but it seems I was wrong.The general consensus there seems to be that amongst RTL trackwork Peco 83 line is at least as good at its code 83 competitors in appearance and has a definite edge in reliability . Nobody that I could find on various US forums thought it was unprototypical rubbish. 

[Clive Mortimore]

As I have a maths degree, I think I should be able to calculate angles and lengths, but I am getting frustrated with Peco Streamline large radius OO/HO point.

According to info online it is to a nominal 1524mm(60in) radius, with an angle of 12 degrees.

This would then give a length from toe to end of curve of 317mm(12.5n approx),calculated from radius times sin of angle, but actual length is 253mm (9.97in) . This happens to be the value if the radius is 1219mm(48in).

So what is the radius?

Having read all 8 pages of what is wrong with Peco track despite it works, it is reliable, it is readily avavilable and it is easy to make a layout with I did not come across the answer to the question.

 

Has anyone got enough large radius points not nailed to the baseboard to make a full cirlce. Once this has been done get a tape measure and measure the diameter, divide by 2 for the radius.

 

Retiring under the rock I came from.

[martin_wynne]

Has anyone got enough large radius points not nailed to the baseboard to make a full cirlce. Once this has been done get a tape measure and measure the diameter, divide by 2 for the radius.

 

We have already been through all that, see: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/103006-peco-ooho-large-radius-point-measurement-query/page-2&do=findComment&comment=2019529

 

The result is not a true circle, so can't be substituted into, unless for the Large Radius turnouts you chop 13.77mm off each turnout (at the blades end).

 

If you do that, the substitution radius is the same for all sizes of Peco turnouts, 1162.24mm  ( 45.76" ), because they all have the same offset (25.4mm) at 12 degrees of swing.

 

Martin.

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Martin

 

Nice drawing. Please why do you have to confuse a light hearted reply with things like "substitution radius"?

 

Anyhow my suggestion would give a "nominal radius".

 

Peco points look 'orrid, and are a fudge.They work, are reliable, are readily avavilable and are easy to make a layout with.......'nough said.