Improving Peco Code 75

[Andy Y]

I would try an independent chemist Weejock.

 

I would think that the Maplin/aerosol route may be a little more expensive but at least they don't hide behind liquor licensing for not stocking a product!

[KJM]

I would try an independent chemist Weejock.

 

I would think that the Maplin/aerosol route may be a little more expensive but at least they don't hide behind liquor licensing for not stocking a product!

 

Thanks Andy, I never thought about an independent

 

Regards

Weejock

[pointstaken]

Weejock/Andy,

 

http://www.maplin.co.uk/Search.aspx?criteria=ipa

RE71N is one litre cans of the stuff, if this is what you are looking for.

These aren't aerosols - I've got 4 cans of it sitting in my garage.

Dennis

[beast66606]

Hi Andy

 

Could you let me know where I could buy IPA, I am very keen to use this method, I have tried Boots the chemist but they say that they do not sell it as they do not have a license to sell alcohol..!! I have tried the Maplins site, they sell it but only as an aerosol, would this suffice.

 

Regards

Weejock

 

 

eBay Isopropyl Alcohol

[kipford]

Could you let me know where I could buy IPA, I am very keen to use this method, I have tried Boots the chemist but they say that they do not sell it as they do not have a license to sell alcohol..!! I have tried the Maplins site, they sell it but only as an aerosol, would this suffice.

 

Go into a Maplins shop they sell it in large tins.

 

Dave

[RBE]

I concur with spacing out the sleepers on Peco code 75. I did this on my challenge layout Outon Road. The wooden sleepered track is SMP which save oodles of time and looks better than Peco wood anyway but for the concrete I used Peco 75 concrete and cut and spaced all the sleepers accordingly. The Peco code 75 has pandrols and once spaced properly looks pretty good IMO.

 

Cheers

Cav

[Chinahand]

What a great thread and "thank you Andy" for kicking it off.

 

As an N Gauger (Code 55) I can't do much about my sleeper spacing but the rest of the ideas and information are all good stuff.

[rouse2037]

A great thread indeed. I've made my own sleeper spacing template for some code 75 that i intend to use on an inglenook - work starts over xmas!

Trevor (chinahand) - I have used this sort of method a few years back on some Peco code 55 to get the sleepers to the correct spacing - looks much better afterwards and worth doing - if you have the time.

 

Cheers all and a Merry Christmas

Roger

[Chinahand]

I look forward to seeing your inglenook Roger

 

I think I'll give the sleeper separation a miss though.

 

It's tricky enough having to cut away the carrier to make a soldered dropper connection. The thought of separating every sleeper in 50 metres of track does not appeal.

[rouse2037]

Hi Trevor

 

50 metres to do?! - yeah I'd give that a miss too! and anyway, when it's ballasted etc you often can't tell!! All my recent layouts tend to be of the micro style with buried sleepers, overgrown gubbins and lots of weeds. I'll do it to the code 75 in places i think but there's more to life!

 

Cheers

Roger

[beast66606]

Whilst looking for something else I found my thread on Peco points (on the old forum)

[roythebus]

I've used a mixture of Peco code 75 and Tillig on my latest layout. whilst they can all be made to look good, I'm not happy with the result, but then I'm getting too fussy and have the space to replace it all with C&L/Exactoscale/SMP stuff using Templot!

 

The problems with the Tillig points is the tiebar is a bit flimsy, the wing rails can work loose, but can be fixed with either a bit of superglue or a hot soldering iron on one sleeper, otherwise they run really well and look good.

[Chinahand]

While I don't go the whole hog I have been experimenting with reducing the amount of plastic on the N Gauge Code 55 points.

 

Here are some before and after shots of a Scissor Crossing I've been working on. Once installed the linking sleepers at both ends will also be cut away to just leave the individual sleepers for each track.

 

BEFORE

 

 

AFTER

 

 

As I have the Seep PM1s which are not locking I can't completely get rid of the plastic tie bar but I think I have reduced it by about 50%

[Pete the Elaner]

when it's ballasted etc you often can't tell!!

I've found it is like moving from code 100 to code 75: when you work with 100, it looks ok & you don't notice the change to 75 so much, but once you get used to 75, 100 looks coarse.

Same with sleeper spacing: Even weathered nicely, standard streamline looks very noticeably worse once you get used to seeing it with the sleepers spaced out.

[PWSlack]

That's an interesting approach that will work well on the new British HO project currently being schemed, the track gauge being correct for it and all that. Thanks for posting it.

 

Any advice as to what to do for those blinkin' awful proprietary points, or is hand-crafting their replacements the only real way forward?

[Guest Belgian]

Whilst I agree that the Tillig points are an improvement on Peco in general, I haven't seen any comment on the sleeper orientation, which screams "non-British" to me.

 

Look at the pictures of Tillig and Peco points earlier in this thread and you'll that whereas on the Peco points the sleepers are at right angles to the straight road on the Tilligs they are orientated to the frog, which, I believe, is common Continental practise. Sadly, neither type is truly representative of "proper" British track - oh for someone to produce a modern range to rival Peco!

 

JE

[57xx]

Whilst I agree that the Tillig points are an improvement on Peco in general, I haven't seen any comment on the sleeper orientation, which screams "non-British" to me.

Have to say that's always made me quietly chuckle when people have advocated Tillig points as being more realistic than Peco's, yet the sleepers are obviously "wrong" still. Granted, the blades look much better, but the Tillig sleepers ruin the effect for me.

[PWSlack]

...oh for someone to produce a modern range to rival Peco!...

OK. How about C&L, Colin Craig, and Exactoscale, then (usual disclaimer)?

[Ron Solly]

OK. How about C&L, Colin Craig, and Exactoscale, then (usual disclaimer)?

 

The question is - do they have the range of Peco/Tillig & ready to lay?

[PWSlack]

The question is - do they have the range of Peco/Tillig & ready to lay?

Use these components with Templot at 3.5mm/1ft scale, and hand-build using code 75 rail.

[57xx]

Use these components with Templot at 3.5mm/1ft scale, and hand-build using code 75 rail.

 

Not exactly ready to lay, is it?

[Russ (mines a pint)]

-going back to the first page, the bit about resleepering the peco point with copperclad.

- even thought its extensive butchering and possibly more work than building your own point it does have its advantages.

 

1. you can use free planning software as the point stays the same/size geometry as the peco one from which it derives, this can also save space over points built to 'prototype templates'

2. the frog (crossing) and blades(switch) are ready made (-yes I know you can buy them from C&L etc)

3. unless you do something disastarous the whole assembly should stay in gauge throughout

4. unless you do something disastarous the thing should be foolproof useable at the end, which is not always gauranteed with hand built points.

5. the result would look good used in with a more scale flexi track ie scaleway/C&L (the difference in rail section for joining is not a problem I've tried it !)

 

It is therefore not a thing which should be totally written off as 'not worth doing' - I think that the fact that it more or less has to remain in correct gauge would be a factor to someone wanting to make a start on improving track appearance but who might not have the confidence/patience to hand build a point, the first (or more) of which may not be any use?

[James]

but for the concrete I used Peco 75 concrete and cut and spaced all the sleepers accordingly. The Peco code 75 has pandrols and once spaced properly looks pretty good IMO.

If you're going to the effort of respacing the Peco concretes, wouldn't you be as well to just use Exactoscale track bases?

[mike knowles]

-going back to the first page, the bit about resleepering the peco point with copperclad.

 

- even thought its extensive butchering and possibly more work than building your own point it does have its advantages.

 

1. you can use free planning software as the point stays the same/size geometry as the peco one from which it derives, this can also save space over points built to 'prototype templates'

2. the frog (crossing) and blades(switch) are ready made (-yes I know you can buy them from C&L etc)

3. unless you do something disastarous the whole assembly should stay in gauge throughout

4. unless you do something disastarous the thing should be foolproof useable at the end, which is not always gauranteed with hand built points.

5. the result would look good used in with a more scale flexi track ie scaleway/C&L (the difference in rail section for joining is not a problem I've tried it !)

 

It is therefore not a thing which should be totally written off as 'not worth doing' - I think that the fact that it more or less has to remain in correct gauge would be a factor to someone wanting to make a start on improving track appearance but who might not have the confidence/patience to hand build a point, the first (or more) of which may not be any use?

 

Ref item 5 above, I've attached a couple of pictures showing the modified point installed on a test track. (The modified point is nearest the camera, the other one is standard PECO). One problem was the use of a code 100 point (it happened to be available at the time), code 75 would fit better with the other plain trackwork.

Agree that it's useful as a starting point in modyfing/building trackwork as it's (almost) foolproof but scratchbuilding still produces much better reults.

[PWSlack]

http://www.proto87.org/d/