Peco Setrack curved points

[Peppercorn]

Good afternoon,

I thought that, for the sake of speed and convenience, I'd use this range of track for my fiddle yard. My design includes a pair of the curved points. I've asked Peco what the two radii are of these points, but dealing with Peco is like drawing teeth and they don't seem to be able to address the question. So, how about RMWeb? I thought: does anyone know? As a supplementary, is any modification necessary to them for DCC ?

Thanks in anticipation,

CliffH

 

[woodenhead]

I had three for my fiddleyard, they went back within a week - Hornby M7s and Black Motors detested them and some of my other stock wasnt too happy either.

 

EMUs were happier and I imagine diesel/electrics will also be happy.

 

I went back to streamline code 100 curved points.

[Spitfire2865]

I have no experience with Peco curved turnouts personally, but of what Ive heard, avoid if possible, and certainly dont have several in a string.

Many people report issues regarding derailing and inconsistent radius.

In a fiddle yard, its a recipe for frustration.

[melmerby]

What about the Hornby/Bachmann curved point?

Are they any better?

 

Keith

[Free At Last]

According to here   https://www.enigon.com/raily/modules/en/ho_peco_setrack_code_100.html#_      they are 517.64 and 411.78

[rue_d_etropal]

I would have a look at those Peco points.

When Peco first introduced them they were 1st radius, but when Bachmann/Replica started introducing locos(V1/2/3 ) that would only go round a minimum of 2nd radius, they changed the design to 2nd radius.

You can still find the smaller radius ones which are excellent for small locos, but it does sound lke the points you have are the old ones. The new ones are far far bettter than anything Hornby or Bachmann do(the Bachmann ones were originally designed for Hornby by Roco, so both types are virtually the same)

[rue_d_etropal]

I have no experience with Peco curved turnouts personally, but of what Ive heard, avoid if possible, and certainly dont have several in a string.

Many people report issues regarding derailing and inconsistent radius.

In a fiddle yard, its a recipe for frustration.

Much of what you hear from other people is often complete rubbish. Peco points are still the best r2r ones produced. I have used Peco points for years, including both the original 1st radius curved points so I am commenting from personal experience.

Curves can be a problem,even larger radius but problem normally caused by badly connecting tracks. It does not take much of a kink in the curve to cause derailments.

[Pete the Elaner]

Curves can be a problem,even larger radius but problem normally caused by badly connecting tracks. It does not take much of a kink in the curve to cause derailments.

Inconsistent back-to-backs are at least as much of a problem. This is the first thing I check after any derailment as they are usually set wrong on new items of stock.

[ejstubbs]

I had an ST-245 left-hand curved point on my last layout (before it got dismantled) and never had any problems at all with it.  Everything from a Midland 1F to a Duchess ran through it without any trouble at all.  That said, if I was using them in a 'ladder' formation, I would make very sure that they all were laid flat and true.

 

Both curved roads in the ST-244 and ST-245 are nominally second radius.  The inner road is all 2nd radius, diverging by 33.75° ie equivalent to 1 x ST-225 plus 1 x ST-227.  The outer road is equivalent to an ST-203 short straight followed by an ST-225, so it only diverges 22.5°.

 

This diagram is quite useful for understanding setrack geometry: http://www.anticsonline.co.uk/1999_1_106717291.html

 

Most decent track planning applications will be able to include setrack components within a layout design that otherwise uses more relaxed track geometries such as streamline.  I know that AnyRail does.

[woodenhead]

My Bachmann locos had no problem with the set track curve points, it was mainly the M7's that would derail over the point, i deduced the pony was hitting the loco body as the body over hangs the wheels.  The Hornby Black motor wasn't too happy but my Bachmann C class was fine.

[melmerby]

 

(the Bachmann ones were originally designed for Hornby by Roco, so both types are virtually the same)

Exactly the same, as some Bachmann points have the Hornby R number!

 

See my post in Bargain Hunters:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/41387-bargain-hunters/page-196&do=findComment&comment=2747892

 

Keith

[28XX]

The 'radius' of both Hornby and Peco points is not uniform throughout. With the exception of the basic setrack points, the curved routes are a combination of straights and curved sections of varying radii.

 

In the past layout planning was best done with the templates available from Peco, now it's easier to use Xtracad or similar for layout planning.

 

There is no virtue in understanding the geometry in detail, work empirically and you'll be fine.

[ejstubbs]

In the past layout planning was best done with the templates available from Peco

 

Have Peco ever offered templates for setrack?  I always thought it was an OO industry standard, so they wouldn't need to.  Though TBH I've never stopped to wonder which industry body was responsible for defining it.  Certainly DOGA don't seem to have anything to do with it.  Perhaps its origins are lost in the mists of time...

Edited July 14, 2017 by ejstubbs

[melmerby]

Have Peco ever offered templates for setrack?  I always thought it was an OO industry standard, so they wouldn't need to.  Though TBH I've never stopped to wonder which industry body was responsible for defining it.  Certainly DOGA don't seem to have anything to do with it.  Perhaps its origins are lost in the mists of time...

The plans on offer only seem to apply to various types of Streamline.

 

Keith

[ejstubbs]

Oh, I know that they currently only do templates for streamline.  I was just wondering whether they might have done them for setrack at some point in the past.  (I should have emphasised the "ever" in my post.)

[28XX]

I think Tri-Ang Super 4 established the train set geometry which was adopted by Peco, but in code 100 and better made. I think this is the only system where the standard turnout is a direct replacement for a 17.25" / 22.5 degree standard curve. The Hornby curved points are a modern invention and only substitute for plain curves when used in combinations as per their diagrams.

[locomad]

I've used set track curved points in the past and have had a few problems but discovered later it was more on how I used them, than the points themselves.

 

I found they are ok if you use a straight lenghts of track at the toe end, but if you place them in a curve derailments can occur on the inner curve of the point, I assume that the stock is ok going round at a constant radius but the sudden change to another tighter radius can lead to derailments. This effect does not seem to affect the larger radius non set track points they sell.

[RJS1977]

I seem to remember that there was one time back in the 80s where both PECO and Hornby were advertising their track as being 'The only track which conforms to British standard geometry'!

[rue_d_etropal]

Oh, I know that they currently only do templates for streamline.  I was just wondering whether they might have done them for setrack at some point in the past.  (I should have emphasised the "ever" in my post.)

The templates  for OO Setrack are not online, but I am sure they used to do a printed version.

Again I stress Peco changed the design of the curved setrack points from 1st to 2nd radius. The model number changed, can't remember what it was before

.

Roco used to produce the track for Hornby, and were designing a new version when Hornby moved to China. Hornby then decided not to use Roco, so Bachmann stepped it and used the Roco manufactured track. I think Hornby then changed some designs slightly, to improve running through the express points. Both Bachmann and Hornby are not nearly as strong as Peco. In fact if you used the original Peco point motor on Hornby points, it would break them, one reason why I think Peco introduced a less powerful point motor. The Hornby point motor design was very similar to the peco one, which is why some would use the Peco one. Given that the Peco points cost the same as Hornby and Bachmann, I can't understand why anyone would choose to use anything other than the Peco ones.

 

I did quite a bit of research on track geometry a few years ago (I have a maths degree).The old Triang and other toy train track systems were based on a very crude  30 degree angle, so you needed odd lengths of straight strack to fit passing loops etc. . When Hornby Dublo started their OO track, they used a tighter radius initially, and a cross over worked out at what is now the gap used for setrack and others.. When they wanted a second larger radius, it worked out at what I think was mentioned as the British standard. The 2nd radius is the value it is because that is what Hornby Dublo came up with. In fact I think 1st radius started out at 15in then change a bit, so it would all fit together.

The setrack curved points are proper curves(although the frog area might be straight). The inner is an exact 2nd radius curve, and the outer is a short straight followed by a 2nd radius curve.

 

Steamline points have a mixture of straight and curved bits. As far as I can tell the section from the tiebar to the end is always straight. With setrack points, the curve starts straight away, making it even more important to lay track properly, especially for a curved point.

Too many blame the track, when it is normally one of two problems, either badly set back to backs on wheels(more often than not for new Hornby locos), and secondly poorly laid track (either rails kinked or track not flat).

 

For templates, I use the same geometry for my 3D printed inset/tram track system. I have templates for my track online which can be printed off easily.

Edited July 14, 2017 by rue_d_etropal

[DCB]

The latest Peco catalogue clearly shows the inner radius of the  ST 245 is 2nd Radius and it needs a special ST 227 1/4 curve to equal a standard  ST 226 curve, The Streamline Curved point always used to be described as inner 30" radius outer 60" radius

The set track curved point is very long and  does not really save over much space unless it is part of a ladder on a 90 degree curve , so I would try to use streamline points if possible.  I successfully bent a streamline curved point down to around 3rd radius on the inner track under a thread about bending streamline points.   The Set Track ones look awful and trains on the outer radius sort of wiggle from curved to straight as they pass through which is a good recipe for  derailments. I 

Edited July 15, 2017 by DavidCBroad

[RJS1977]

My understanding is that the old setrack curved points were inner radius 1st, outer 2nd and the streamline ones are inner third to outer 4th. It sounds to me as if the new setrack ones are inner 2nd and outer 3rd. All three types have their uses.

[locomad]

The templates  for OO Setrack are not online, but I am sure they used to do a printed version.

Again I stress Peco changed the design of the curved setrack points from 1st to 2nd radius. The model number changed, can't remember what it was before

.

y.

The peco templates are in Xtkca, old and newer ones, along with traing, Hornby dublo, and other makes

[Peppercorn]

Thank you all so much for your response to my query, it is all very helpful indeed. You have answered even my unasked questions, clever lot that you are!

Heartfelt thanks,

CliffH

[ejstubbs]

When Hornby Dublo started their OO track, they used a tighter radius initially, and a cross over worked out at what is now the gap used for setrack and others.. When they wanted a second larger radius, it worked out at what I think was mentioned as the British standard. The 2nd radius is the value it is because that is what Hornby Dublo came up with.

 

The setrack curved points are proper curves(although the frog area might be straight). The inner is an exact 2nd radius curve, and the outer is a short straight followed by a 2nd radius curve.

 

According to AnyRail, the Dublo track spacing was 57mm; Setrack is 67mm.  Is it possible that Hornby could get away with a smaller track spacing because they didn't have any long coaches with large end overhangs?  It is, of course, also possible that AnyRail is wrong...  (I can't get on with XtrackCad at all - it seems wholly counterintuitive to me.)

 

I agree that the current setrack 2nd radius is the same as Dublo's outer radius curves.

 

I also agree with your description of the current Peco setrack curved points.

 

My understanding is that the old setrack curved points were inner radius 1st, outer 2nd and the streamline ones are inner third to outer 4th. It sounds to me as if the new setrack ones are inner 2nd and outer 3rd. All three types have their uses.

 

Streamline doesn't use setrack radii.  The nominal radii of the streamline curved points is clearly shown in the product description on Peco's web site: 1524mm and 762mm - both much larger radius than any setrack curve.

 

The geometry of the current setrack curved points is as described by rue_d_etropal.  There's no 3rd radius involved.

Edited July 15, 2017 by ejstubbs

[DCB]

The Hornby Dublo geometry is based on a standard trainset 15" radius curve divided  into eight full curves or 16 half curves. One H/D point exactly replaces one (small radius) half curve or one half straight. There were large radius curves very much like 2nd radius though I don't have any.   Hornby Dublo 3 rail points have flangeways the same depth as H/D flanges so wheels run through very smoothly without dropping into a rail gap. 2 rail is similar geometry but some weird live frog arrangement.  The H/D rail was a strange pressed section rounded on top, The 2 rail was code 100 like peco Code 100.  The H/D points have virtually no straight before the point blades so are 15" radius through the curved road

 

Set Track has its roots in Triang geometry which had a 13" ish standard curve divided into 12 sections. The points replaced either a curve or a straight. There was also a rather rare large radius which was around 17/18" radius like second radius. This track had soild bases with dummy ballast and sleepers and a huge rail section easily capable of being walked ion with no damage and continued into Series 3 track which had huge widely spaced sleepers and for Super 4 with 00 scale sleeper spacing.  For Super 4 the geometry changed to eight standard curves/ 16 halves per circle with the points replacing either a large (2nd) radius 1/2 curve or a 1/2 straight. The first radius also changed to around 14 and 5/8ths" slightly tighter than H/D.  The points had a straight lead in for three or four sleepers so the sharp road was actually nearer 15" than 18" and this annoying feature continues through to cause derailments on modern setrack.

 

Hornby Dublo didn't make 64ft coaches, their Mk1s were scale 57ft and many had offset bogie pivots to minimise throw.   and their closer rail spacing worked fine, in fact if laid correctly they could have got away with 50mm and 15" radius