ISW Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Is the angle of the short, medium, and long Peco turnouts the same? ie: the angle between the straight and diverging tracks. I was under the impression that they would be different, until I started drawing up a track layout using some design software. It came as something of a surprise. If I wanted to have different angles, what are my options for 'off the shelf' products compatible with Peco Code 100 track? Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 No in 00 streamline the longer the point the shallower the frog angle, but if you overlay a short a medium and a long radius point on each other at the frog end all the rail ends are exactly in line thus keeping the standard streamline track spacing even if you use a short and a long radius streamline point to form a crossover (why anyone would want to is another matter) I dug out a pile of code 100 points and checked this rather than relying on the web etc. Not very obviously in all cases the final inch or so of curved track at the frog end is actually straight, so the actual radius is considerably less than the nominal radius which is why a 2ft radius short radius curve is actually 18" radius through the curved part and the set track standard nominal 18" or 2nd radius point is more like 15" through the curved part. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edcayton Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 No in 00 streamline the longer the point the shallower the frog angle, but if you overlay a short a medium and a long radius point on each other at the frog end all the rail ends are exactly in line thus keeping the standard streamline track spacing even if you use a short and a long radius streamline point to form a crossover (why anyone would want to is another matter) I dug out a pile of code 100 points and checked this rather than relying on the web etc. Not very obviously in all cases the final inch or so of curved track at the frog end is actually straight, so the actual radius is considerably less than the nominal radius which is why a 2ft radius short radius curve is actually 18" radius through the curved part and the set track standard nominal 18" or 2nd radius point is more like 15" through the curved part. If the angles are different, and you make a cross-over with a short and a long radius point, surely the straight bit of the points won't be parallel? Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejstubbs Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) If the angles are different, and you make a cross-over with a short and a long radius point, surely the straight bit of the points won't be parallel? Ed According to the information I've seen, the angle subtended by the curved section (which AIUI is not the same as the frog angle) of all the code 100 points is 12°. One exception is the long Y point, where the two curved sections are each only 6°, giving a total divergent angle of 12°. The curved points also diverge at 12°; as far as I can tell the inner track curves by 19° and the outer by 7°. So you can form a crossover from one long and one short point, and the double tracks will be parallel. In addition, due to other point geometry jiggery-pokery, whatever combination of straight points you use to form the crossover (long+short, short+medium etc) the track separation will always be 52mm. Edited October 21, 2015 by ejstubbs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 Getting your head around the radius of a Peco point and the crossing angle of said point can for some seem confusing. As said the angle of the crossing is the same for all points and crossings 22 degrees I believe, as explained this is so all turnouts and crossings are compatible with each other and I guess reduces manufacturing costs Now the radius in which the curved exit fits into varies between the small medium and large radius points. the difference being in the length of the switch rails (and perhaps the closure rails as well) In the past previous track manufacturers quoted a radius for their points ( GEM and Formway come to mind). This may have caused confusion for some, also with some track plans quoting radii rather than quoting radius 1/2/3 curves as in some ranges 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chimer Posted October 21, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 21, 2015 I'm sure all the above is valuable and correct, but the OP didn't ask about radius, frog angles or separation. The simple answer to the simple question asked is yes, they all diverge by the same amount, 12 degrees (as ejstubbs said). 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejstubbs Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 As said the angle of the crossing is the same for all points and crossings 22 degrees I believe You're probably thinking of the Setrack turnouts which have a diverging angle of 22.5° (or 11.25° for the curved turnouts). The OP referred to "short. medium and long" turnouts which implies Streamline (since Peco Setrack only has one length of turnout) and in that range the angles are much smaller. In the past previous track manufacturers quoted a radius for their points ( GEM and Formway come to mind). This may have caused confusion for some, also with some track plans quoting radii rather than quoting radius 1/2/3 curves as in some ranges Again, radius 1/2/3 is a Setrack concept which isn't used in the Streamline range. The product descriptions on the Peco web site do specify both the divergent angle and the nominal radius of each turnout, for example see the description of the large radius L/H turnout. (It's worth noting that the divergent angles and nominal radii for the Code 83 Streamline turnouts are not the same as for the Code 100 and Code 75. Why Peco lump all three rail codes into one long list on their web site is beyond me, especially since the descriptions of the invidual items don't specify the rail code. You apparently have to "just know" that code 75 has a "1" prefix on the number part of the poduct, and code 83 has "83".) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brigo Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 A small digression to the original question concerning the curved points in code 75 and 100. They do not have the same geometry. I have not seen this published anywhere and a number of CAD programs including Anyrail and Cadrail assume them to be identical. This may be because when Peco introduced the code 75 points they did not produce a new template sheet, instead simply relabeling the existing code 100 one as suitable for both. You can compare them here:- Code 100 http://www.peco-uk.com/imageselector/Files/Track-templates/SL-86,87.pdf Code 75 http://www.peco-uk.com/imageselector/Files/Track-templates/c75/SL-E186,E187%20plan%20sheet.pdf Brian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ISW Posted October 21, 2015 Author Share Posted October 21, 2015 Many thanks for the answers / information. At least I now know that the turnout geometry of the Peco code-100 turnouts in the track layout software I'm using is correct. I haven't checked the code-75 ones as I wasn't planning to use them. From the answers I summarize: all Peco streamline turnouts have the same turned angle (12-degrees) the angle and radius is printed on the turnout packaging - now I know where to find it! Maybe Peco should include it on the 'specification' sheets, which I did print out the increase in turnout length is accounted for by the increase in turnout radius the crossing part of the turnout is straight, with the turnout curve ending somewhere 'before' the crossing a Peco setrack turnout has a larger angle of 22-degrees (probably okay for industrial sidings, but not mainlines) Bullet 4 is of some concern. Since all the streamline turnouts have the same turned angle, the only way to vary it is to introduce a curve onto the back of the turnout. If a larger angle is required, then the turnout radius can be extended - but with a short 'flat' (straight part) at the turnout crossing. If a smaller angle is required, a reverse curve (with a short 'flat') results. Is this actually an issue, or am I being overly worried? Now I understand why some modellers build their own turnouts. Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) The "Frog" angle is different, I don't have a protractor which works, but on the long radius points the diverging rail from the end of the frog to the end of the rail is 48 mm while the medium is 42mm. Both diverge from the "straight" rail by 8 mm 1 in 5.25 and 1 in 6. I have no idea what these angles are but they are different... Pairs of similar points give the 52mm track spacing and dissimilar points give the track spacing but at the expense of a slight kink. Edited October 21, 2015 by DavidCBroad Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ISW Posted October 22, 2015 Author Share Posted October 22, 2015 The "Frog" angle is different, I don't have a protractor which works, but on the long radius points the diverging rail from the end of the frog to the end of the rail is 48 mm while the medium is 42mm. Both diverge from the "straight" rail by 8 mm 1 in 5.25 and 1 in 6. I have no idea what these angles are but they are different... Pairs of similar points give the 52mm track spacing and dissimilar points give the track spacing but at the expense of a slight kink. This seems to conflict with the previous responses I received. I did a quick check on a few internet web pages (actually an Ebay model shop in Sydney Australia!) and found the following information for Peco Streamline Code 100 turnouts: Type Radius Angle (degrees) Length (mm) Small (SL-92) 610mm (24") 12 185mm Medium (SL-95) 914mm (36") 12 219mm Large (SL-88) 1524mm (60") 12 258mm Curved Large (SL-86) 1524mm (60") / 762mm (30") n/a 256mm (if there is a 'proper' way to do Tables in these posts let me know!) This Table appears to confirm the 12-degrees common angle for Code-100 streamline turnouts. All of which makes me wonder if there exists a 'complete' trackwork modelling 'specification' in the modelling community (containing all the salient measurements, track centres, turnout angles, gradient recommendations, structure gauge requirements - straight and curves, platform offsets / height, I could go on ...) to which we could all refer (and contribute)? Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted October 22, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) This seems to conflict with the previous responses I received. I did a quick check on a few internet web pages (actually an Ebay model shop in Sydney Australia!) and found the following information for Peco Streamline Code 100 turnouts: Type Radius Angle (degrees) Length (mm) Small (SL-92) 610mm (24") 12 185mm Medium (SL-95) 914mm (36") 12 219mm Large (SL-88) 1524mm (60") 12 258mm Curved Large (SL-86) 1524mm (60") / 762mm (30") n/a 256mm (if there is a 'proper' way to do Tables in these posts let me know!) This Table appears to confirm the 12-degrees common angle for Code-100 streamline turnouts. All of which makes me wonder if there exists a 'complete' trackwork modelling 'specification' in the modelling community (containing all the salient measurements, track centres, turnout angles, gradient recommendations, structure gauge requirements - straight and curves, platform offsets / height, I could go on ...) to which we could all refer (and contribute)? Ian What you have posted is correct. The long diamond, single and double slips are 12 degrees and the short crossing is 24 degrees. Corrected as per St Endodoc. Long time since I purchased any, is my excuse! A compilation of standards is much harder as different people have different ideas - especially regarding grades & what stock will go around, but looks ridiculous in doing so. The structures & dimensions, you'd probably find on the OO Gauge Society website. Edited October 22, 2015 by kevinlms Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium St Enodoc Posted October 22, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 22, 2015 The diamonds, single and double slips are 24 degrees, as obviously each track is 12 degrees from the centre line. Not so! The short diamond is 24 degrees. The long diamond and the slips are 12 degrees, the same as the turnouts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted October 22, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 22, 2015 Not so! The short diamond is 24 degrees. The long diamond and the slips are 12 degrees, the same as the turnouts. Oh, you are quite correct! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) [ The only slight problem is the points dont actually agree with the specifications. The 2ft and 3 ft are quite near 12 degrees but the 4ft "Large" radius sometimes claimed to be 5ft is way off. Even Templot gets the frog angle wrong on the large radius by assuming the angle is 12 degrees and the rails at the heel end are the same as the 3 ft, the templot rails at the heel are not even parallel. See pics including the 18" bit of the 2' radius point and the small medium and large together and my points pile mainly acquired from my excellent local model shop Cheltenham Model Centre as in need of repair! Edited October 22, 2015 by DavidCBroad Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ISW Posted October 22, 2015 Author Share Posted October 22, 2015 David, Now you have me worried .... I was planning to design my layout accurately with layout software before any building commenced. However, if the 'real' turnouts don't match up to the 'geometry' specification I'm going to have a problem. Mutter ... Out of curiosity, can you 'overlay' your 'real' turnouts onto the Peco turnout plans (printed full-size)? Are the differences visible, and if so where? Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 22, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 22, 2015 Even Templot gets the frog angle wrong on the large radius by assuming the angle is 12 degrees and the rails at the heel end are the same as the 3 ft, the templot rails at the heel are not even parallel. Please explain what you think Templot has got wrong: PECO LARGE-RADIUS TURNOUT _______________ template generated at 10:36:06 on 22/10/2015 using Templot v:2.12.a scale = 4.0 mm/ft scale ratio = 1:76.2 track gauge = 16.5 flangeway gap = 1.5 template: straight rail head only (bullhead): rails vertical ------------ LH turnout: 1:35 Peco-only left-hand switch (unjoggled) 1 in 5.93 RAM ( 1 in 5.97 CLM ) curviform V-crossing square-on timbering ------------ adjacent track centres main side = 50.8 adjacent track centres turnout side = 50.8 angle at TXP crossover mid-point (CTRL-5) = 12.0 degrees ( 1 in 4.7 RAM ) angle at TVJP turnout road vee joint (CTRL-6) = 12.0 degrees ( 1 in 4.7 RAM ) ------------ overall length = 258.0 approach/exit track in 45 ft rails / 19 sleepers per length ( rail length = 180.0 ): approach track length = 0 exit track length = 0 turnout-road centre-line radius (at turnout-curve) = 1137.88 nominal switch-curve radius (rail gauge-face) = 2940.0 (straight switch) turnout-curve radius (rail gauge-face) = 1146.13 switch-curve radial centre: X = [ -2855783.26 ] Y = 99954211.68 (from CTRL-0) turnout-curve radial centre: X = 18.83 Y = 1138.41 (from CTRL-0) switch front (rail-joint to switch-toe) = 16.57 virtual lead (switch-toe to fine-point) = 192.92 actual lead (switch-toe to blunt nose) = 194.41 blunt nose to timber A = [ -0.65 ] width of blunt nose = 0.25 wing rail reach length (main-side) = 18.0 wing rail reach length (turnout-side) = 18.0 check rail overall length (main-side) = 40.0 check rail overall length (turnout-side) = 40.0 ------------ smallest radius on this template = 1138 mm ( 44.8 " ) total angular swing on this template = 0 degrees (in main road) ------------ nominal gauge : 00/H0 16.5 mm 4 mm/ft 1:76.2 00/H0 Universal UK ------------ internal geometrical radius = 1176.1 ( 46.3 " ) external geometrical radius (substitution radius) = 1162.24 ( 45.76 " ) ------------ However, Templot is not intended for use with Peco track, it is for handbuilt track only. regards, Martin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chimer Posted October 22, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 22, 2015 Many thanks for the answers / information. At least I now know that the turnout geometry of the Peco code-100 turnouts in the track layout software I'm using is correct. I haven't checked the code-75 ones as I wasn't planning to use them. From the answers I summarize: all Peco streamline turnouts have the same turned angle (12-degrees) the angle and radius is printed on the turnout packaging - now I know where to find it! Maybe Peco should include it on the 'specification' sheets, which I did print out the increase in turnout length is accounted for by the increase in turnout radius the crossing part of the turnout is straight, with the turnout curve ending somewhere 'before' the crossing a Peco setrack turnout has a larger angle of 22-degrees (probably okay for industrial sidings, but not mainlines) Bullet 4 is of some concern. Since all the streamline turnouts have the same turned angle, the only way to vary it is to introduce a curve onto the back of the turnout. If a larger angle is required, then the turnout radius can be extended - but with a short 'flat' (straight part) at the turnout crossing. If a smaller angle is required, a reverse curve (with a short 'flat') results. Is this actually an issue, or am I being overly worried? Now I understand why some modellers build their own turnouts. Ian The "Frog" angle is different, I don't have a protractor which works, but on the long radius points the diverging rail from the end of the frog to the end of the rail is 48 mm while the medium is 42mm. Both diverge from the "straight" rail by 8 mm 1 in 5.25 and 1 in 6. I have no idea what these angles are but they are different... Pairs of similar points give the 52mm track spacing and dissimilar points give the track spacing but at the expense of a slight kink. David, Now you have me worried .... I was planning to design my layout accurately with layout software before any building commenced. However, if the 'real' turnouts don't match up to the 'geometry' specification I'm going to have a problem. Mutter ... Out of curiosity, can you 'overlay' your 'real' turnouts onto the Peco turnout plans (printed full-size)? Are the differences visible, and if so where? Ian Don't worry about David's technical arguments - the frog angle has no bearing on what you are trying to achieve with layout planning software and Peco points. It will work! As far as achieving divergent angles other than 12 degrees is concerned, you're right about adding a curve, which would be a reverse for less than 12 degrees. But (and this bit is only my opinion) a divergence of less than 12 degrees would mean you would have to leave stock a very long way clear of the point to allow traffic to pass on the other line. Having only used train set points in my youth, I was unpleasantly surprised this time around to discover how much of a passing loop was unusable using Streamline points. Best of luck Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 No in 00 streamline the longer the point the shallower the frog angle, but if you overlay a short a medium and a long radius point on each other at the frog end all the rail ends are exactly in line thus keeping the standard streamline track spacing even if you use a short and a long radius streamline point to form a crossover (why anyone would want to is another matter) I dug out a pile of code 100 points and checked this rather than relying on the web etc. Not very obviously in all cases the final inch or so of curved track at the frog end is actually straight, so the actual radius is considerably less than the nominal radius which is why a 2ft radius short radius curve is actually 18" radius through the curved part and the set track standard nominal 18" or 2nd radius point is more like 15" through the curved part. You can get printable templates of all of Peco's points from their website, they're in the technical advice bureau section; these are pdfs and include a rule so you can check that your printer has printed out properly. The templates make it much easier to measure angles and lengths than trying to put a protractor on a physical piece of trackwork. There are some variations between points produced at different times but I've just been checking with some fairly recent examples. The short and medium radius points are identical from the frog to the diverging end and in both cases the diverging track is straight beyond the frog so the final divergence angle is the the same as the frog angle . The long point has a longer shallower (and I think curved) frog and the diverging track is also slightly curved beyond the frog to bring it to the same divergence angle of 12 degrees as the rest of the range (the short Y and short crossing are 24 degrees) I have seen prototype crossovers using points of different lengths - there is one near Paddington- and using turnouts of different lengths and radii with the same frog angle is fairly common on some prototypes. The "Streamline track spacing" is actually the two inch spacing oriignally specified by the BRMSB for 00 though it can look a bit wide and the H0 scale sleepering probably emphasises that. The great advantage of the common angle is that it makes it possible to put together quite complex trackwork for station throats etc. with a minimum of cutting and fettling. If you want a range of frog angles in ready to lay trackwork, Tillig offer that but their track is also H0 and because it's based on German practice may be rather more "foreign" looking than Streamline which seems to be based on Anglo French practice. Peco also produce turnouts with a range of frog angles in their "83 line" range but that's to American NMRA specs. and in N. America sleeper spacings and width are significantly narrower than in Britain and Europe and that's even more apparent in H0 scale with 00 vehicles. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ISW Posted October 22, 2015 Author Share Posted October 22, 2015 Chris / David, Thank you for clearing up some of the issues for me. At least I can progress with a layout in 'software' in the (reasonable) knowledge that when I actually build it the layout will work. Although I am a Brit I've spent just about my entire life working with German or Austrian turnouts around the World from small 140m 1in7 right up to huge 10000/4800m (transition) 1in32.05 swing nose types. I find their geometry much easier to understand than the UK ones, and wouldn't have any problems using such for a model railway. The only issue is compatibility with Peco Code 100 that I would use for the rest (I have quite a few old Lima coaches / locos from the 1980s that will need the Code 100 rails). Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edcayton Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 You can get printable templates of all of Peco's points from their website, they're in the technical advice bureau section; these are pdfs and include a rule so you can check that your printer has printed out properly. The templates make it much easier to measure angles and lengths than trying to put a protractor on a physical piece of trackwork. There are some variations between points produced at different times but I've just been checking with some fairly recent examples. The short and medium radius points are identical from the frog to the diverging end and in both cases the diverging track is straight beyond the frog so the final divergence angle is the the same as the frog angle . The long point has a longer shallower (and I think curved) frog and the diverging track is also slightly curved beyond the frog to bring it to the same divergence angle of 12 degrees as the rest of the range (the short Y and short crossing are 24 degrees) I have seen prototype crossovers using points of different lengths - there is one near Paddington- and using turnouts of different lengths and radii with the same frog angle is fairly common on some prototypes. The "Streamline track spacing" is actually the two inch spacing oriignally specified by the BRMSB for 00 though it can look a bit wide and the H0 scale sleepering probably emphasises that. The great advantage of the common angle is that it makes it possible to put together quite complex trackwork for station throats etc. with a minimum of cutting and fettling. If you want a range of frog angles in ready to lay trackwork, Tillig offer that but their track is also H0 and because it's based on German practice may be rather more "foreign" looking than Streamline which seems to be based on Anglo French practice. Peco also produce turnouts with a range of frog angles in their "83 line" range but that's to American NMRA specs. and in N. America sleeper spacings and width are significantly narrower than in Britain and Europe and that's even more apparent in H0 scale with 00 vehicles. But someone has suggested that the Code 100 and Code 75 points are different, but that the templates are the same. Please explain what you think Templot has got wrong: PECO LARGE-RADIUS TURNOUT _______________ template generated at 10:36:06 on 22/10/2015 using Templot v:2.12.a scale = 4.0 mm/ft scale ratio = 1:76.2 track gauge = 16.5 flangeway gap = 1.5 template: straight rail head only (bullhead): rails vertical ------------ LH turnout: 1:35 Peco-only left-hand switch (unjoggled) 1 in 5.93 RAM ( 1 in 5.97 CLM ) curviform V-crossing square-on timbering ------------ adjacent track centres main side = 50.8 adjacent track centres turnout side = 50.8 angle at TXP crossover mid-point (CTRL-5) = 12.0 degrees ( 1 in 4.7 RAM ) angle at TVJP turnout road vee joint (CTRL-6) = 12.0 degrees ( 1 in 4.7 RAM ) ------------ overall length = 258.0 approach/exit track in 45 ft rails / 19 sleepers per length ( rail length = 180.0 ): approach track length = 0 exit track length = 0 turnout-road centre-line radius (at turnout-curve) = 1137.88 nominal switch-curve radius (rail gauge-face) = 2940.0 (straight switch) turnout-curve radius (rail gauge-face) = 1146.13 switch-curve radial centre: X = [ -2855783.26 ] Y = 99954211.68 (from CTRL-0) turnout-curve radial centre: X = 18.83 Y = 1138.41 (from CTRL-0) switch front (rail-joint to switch-toe) = 16.57 virtual lead (switch-toe to fine-point) = 192.92 actual lead (switch-toe to blunt nose) = 194.41 blunt nose to timber A = [ -0.65 ] width of blunt nose = 0.25 wing rail reach length (main-side) = 18.0 wing rail reach length (turnout-side) = 18.0 check rail overall length (main-side) = 40.0 check rail overall length (turnout-side) = 40.0 ------------ smallest radius on this template = 1138 mm ( 44.8 " ) total angular swing on this template = 0 degrees (in main road) ------------ nominal gauge : 00/H0 16.5 mm 4 mm/ft 1:76.2 00/H0 Universal UK ------------ internal geometrical radius = 1176.1 ( 46.3 " ) external geometrical radius (substitution radius) = 1162.24 ( 45.76 " ) ------------ However, Templot is not intended for use with Peco track, it is for handbuilt track only. regards, Martin. No idea if it makes any difference, but AFAIK all Peco 16.5mm track is flat bottom Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 22, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 22, 2015 No idea if it makes any difference, but AFAIK all Peco 16.5mm track is flat bottom Hi Ed, Peco track isn't based on any known prototype, UK or otherwise, so changing the Templot file to flat-bottom doesn't make any difference. Here it is printed out as flat-bottom: regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) I can't overlay the peco point on the plan without a lot of work but the Templot (at least I think it is the templot) shown in this thread has the frog of the long radius point too near the heel of the point (the overall length appears right) and the angles are wrong The frog assembly is actually the 3 ft Medium radius. It would appear the drawing has been tweaked to give the 12 degree angle whereas it is a bit less. The Medium and Small radius points look fine and work fine but there are issues with the long radius points. They use the same track spacing but a shallower frog angle in plastic and metal compared to the small and medium, even if the spec sheet says otherwise. See the templot attached the hatching effect where the lines are not horizontal does not help. Chimer's comment about clearances between trains on passing loops etc is interesting, but you do need more or less a points length beyond the point before there is clearance for trains. That is a minimum of around 7" with small radius (4" with small Y) each end of a passing loop, that is 14" four wagons or more than a coach length so well worth considering when designing a layout. I squeeze the track spacing down towards 42mm by judicious cutting at the heel end of Streamline points to squeeze in more marshalling or carriage sidings and I squeeze the clearances even tighter where parallel moves are not possible and stock does not stand. In always draw my plan using 1" to 1' scale on an A3 or A4 sketch pad a pen and and a protractor and lots of correction fluid, using 4mm (48mm) track spacing and using a chart of 1/12th point lengths 16mm 19mm and 21mm for peco points and assume a 12 degree angle on the point frogs but I don't get too hung up on precision at the planning stage but I do a lot of checking and tweaking at the laying stage. Edited October 22, 2015 by DavidCBroad Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 22, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) peco_00h0 point.png I can't overlay the peco point on the plan without a lot of work but the Templot (at least I think it is the templot) shown in this thread has the frog of the long radius point too near the heel of the point (the overall length appears right) and the angles are wrong The frog assembly is actually the 3 ft Medium radius. It would appear the drawing has been tweaked to give the 12 degree angle whereas it is a bit less. Hi David, You have lost me there. Here is the Templot screenshot with the ruler tool placed along the splice rail. To the nearest mm it is 48mm, as you say it should be: The V-crossing (frog) is curviform pattern, meaning that the turnout radius runs through, to give a total swing of 12 degrees at the end of the splice rail (exit). The actual angle of the V-crossing at the gauge intersection is 1:5.93 RAM = 9.57 degrees. 1 in 5.93 RAM ( 1 in 5.97 CLM ) curviform V-crossing By comparing the splice rail with the straight edge of the ruler you can see that the splice rail is curved. p.s. this is the Peco Large-Radius Turnout. Are you confusing it with the Medium-Radius Turnout (not shown)? The turnout radius shown (1138mm / 44.8") is correct for the large-radius turnout. For more about Peco geometry, see 8 pages of recent topic: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/103006-peco-ooho-large-radius-point-measurement-query/&do=findComment&comment=2019037 regards, Martin. Edited October 22, 2015 by martin_wynne Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edcayton Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) Any more on the difference between code 100 and code 75 points? Ed Martin-how did the Peco points get into Templot, did you measure them or did Peco give you the info.? Edited October 22, 2015 by edcayton Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now