Modifying Peco Code 75 Points

[Revolution Mike B]

OK people, here's a quick (and what may seem stupid to some) question regarding Peco Code 75 points.

 

Has anyone tried modifying the sleeper spacing and also making large radius straight points slightly curved?

 

Why am I asking this? 

 

I've already taking code 75 flexitrack and re spaced the sleepers to give a better appearance (I don't want to use C&L, or Exactoscale, or scratch build my own track) and given the fact that everything else OO is a compromise, unless I go to EM, or P4, (which as previously mentioned, I don't), I'd like to see what I can achieve by adapting / modifying what's easily available. The standard Peco curved points are way too sharp so I'm looking at trying to reshape the straight points to give a shallower angle. I guess I'll be hampered by the crossing V angle?

 

Any thoughts and input will be gratefully received.

 

Cheers

Mike

[Andy Hayter]

If you cut the web between the sleepers you can almost certainly introduce a curve to a straight point, but I would be hesitant in trying to get much of a curve going because you will need to make sure the now individual sleepers remain in close relation to one another.

 

Regarding moving the sleepers, that is all together more difficult.  For the parts of the point here the 4 rails are fixed to the sleepers, any attempt to move a sleeper will introduce a kink in the geometry of the rails.   This leaves a whole section of the point where you cannot realistically change the sleeper spacing and I think to change it on the rest (which incidentally can also introduce disconnects in the geometry) will just accentuate the fact that you have mucked around with the sleepers, rather than improving the appearance.

 

About the only way I can see of doing what you propose would be to strip out all of the rails except the V and replace with longer bits of rail so making for example a 300mm long point 325mm.  But this would be so much work that frankly you would be better building from scratch.

[bécasse]

I believe that Tillig HO nominally straight LH and RH track points can be laid on a curve, certainly the HOe ones can.

[bertiedog]

But the Tillig are H0, and have H0 sleeper spacing, which is what our poster is trying to improve upon. I use the Peco code 75, with an increased sleeper spacing. It is very difficult to alter the points, they will curve a few degrees, but anything more drastic causes kinks.

 

I worries me that Peco are altering the sleeper spacing with the new bullhead coming, but then they expect you to use the flat bottom close spaced points, with vague promises to do matching points later on.

 

However the re-spaced track does look better and the miss matched point base does not show that much.

 

Stephen

[bourneagain]

Not wanting to start a whole episode on the subject - that is going on in another thread, I recently spoke to the gentleman on the Peco Stand at the York Exhibition and he was of the personal opinion that it would probably never going happen. If they were ever going to be produced just remember how long it has taken to put into production the current range of code 75 points.

Even now the new code 83 American points haven’t yet reached that stage and how many years has it been when they were first introduced? Although outside influences may alter that situation, but C&L currently selling a readymade plastic chaired point at £108 it just isn`t going to happen.

Some Tillig points are designed to be slightly altered, allowing the rails to move through the chairs, however Peco points are made far more rigid and any movement results in a bent track formation.  

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Has anyone tried ...making large radius straight points slightly curved?...

 

Not just tried, but succeeded; had them in use like this nearing ten years. But as Andy Hayter suggests, we are talking very slight curvature, in my case to make the straight road conform to a 40 foot radius curve, so just over 1 degree deflection of the straight road over the length of the point. You can make the large Y slightly assymmetric too...

[Dominion]

"Robert the Devil" shows on his Grantham thread here lots of reshaping of Peco code 100 geometry. I have done some of that too. It is fairly easy to alter the curved point to have a 36 inside radius instead of 30 if that is enough for you. I have also flexed the straight points to make them curved too. I have not tried to do that with code 75 but suspect it would just require a little more care. The code 100's are robust.

 

The Tillig turnout I have has a little consatina under the rail between the sleepers, so it can be flexed without cutting the web.

 

Tom

[Revolution Mike B]

Thanks for the replies so far. The Tillig ones ar code 83?? Surely they're higher than the close 75 rail?

 

The main reason I'd like to be able to reshape the points is due to a crossover on a curve. The Peco curved points are way too sharp so I thought I may be able to use large radius points manipulated in to a five foot radius. Obviously, hand built track would be the way forward but I'm just not ready for that just yet!

 

Cheers

Mike

[Dominion]

Yes, but it's only 2 tenths of a mm. A regular rail joiner will work. But if you slit the top perpendicular to the rail you can turn the join upside down on a hard surface, push down to force the tops of the rail flat, introduce a small bend in the joiner, and solder flat.

Some people don't bother as it is close anyway.

 

But flexing the turnouts should work. The ones I just did I only cut the webs in three places. Tom

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...The main reason I'd like to be able to reshape the points is due to a crossover on a curve. The Peco curved points are way too sharp so I thought I may be able to use large radius points manipulated in to a five foot radius...

 But, but, but... With the large radius point's curved road forming the inside track, and the curved point's 5 foot radius element forming the outside track, there is your crossover formation. Is the problem the nominal 30" radius of the curved points diverging road?

 

The caveat from my experience. I couldn't get the curved point to be wholly reliable in the leading direction, taking the 30" radius path, so confine it to trailing only locations, in which it works reliably. (I expect to be able to reverse a full length train (60 wagons/14 coaches) through any formation faultlessly, and that has left me only the Peco large radius - including the Y - and medium radius points as totally reliable, including being able to put small curvatures into the large rad type.

 

 

 

"Robert the Devil" shows on his Grantham thread here lots of reshaping of Peco code 100 geometry. I have done some of that too. It is fairly easy to alter the curved point to have a 36 inside radius instead of 30 if that is enough for you. I have also flexed the straight points to make them curved too. I have not tried to do that with code 75 but suspect it would just require a little more care...

 I'd rate it as easier, having done both by starting the experiment on old code 100 points, then moving to 75; in much the same way that the code 75 flexi forms curves more easily than code 100. With less force involved on the code 75 point gentle and careful manipulationachieves the result

[Revolution Mike B]

So if I have a left hand curve with an inside to outside facing crossover, I should use a large radius Y on the inside and a large radius r/h on the outside with both manipulated to suit?

[Revolution Mike B]

Ok, so I've purchased a large radius y point and have looked in to mating it with either a large radius modified point or a curved point. Funnily enough, if I cut the diverging rails back to the check rails on the curved point, the geometry looks pretty good. I can live with the sleepers being close together but the check rails still look awful and aren't long enough for a prototypical crossover. I guess I'm either going to have to put up with it or bite the bullet and shell out for some C&L ones :-(

[Revolution Mike B]

After looking at another thread on RMWeb, I went out an bought a Y point and mated it to a curved one. The results are surprisingly good in terms of geometry. On the down side, the sleepers aren't parallel to the running line. 

 

I'd can't seem to post any pictures.

[Dubloseven]

Hello everyone.   After many years using peco code 100 I've been thinking about moving to code 75. Needless to say I'm well pleased to find that my Hornby Dublo stock runs along a test piece very nicely.

 

The one issue I have is with the points. Looking at some in my local model shop earlier I couldn't help but notice that they had prominent pivot points rather like the earlier version of the code 100 streamline points some years ago. Does anyone know if this is par for the course for code 75 points or have I been perhaps looking at some shop stock that's been around for a while?

 

Regards, Cliff.

[bourneagain]

I`m afraid to say that these pivot points are still part of the construction of the present Peco code 75 points. 

[Revolution Mike B]

Just going back on my posts, I ended up taking up the crossover and relaying it with two large radius points doctored to suit, with much better results. If the sleepers all travelled in the same direction it would also look a lot better than it does. The biggest gain is that the 75' coaches don't jar themselves from one side to the other and look to traverse the crossover in a much smoother fashion.