trisonic Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 I just did a quick check and Micro-Mark are selling left and right ME Code 83 turnouts for $20.95 each - but no Code 70 turnouts or track! Btw I had another look it is implied they are Code 83......... Micro-Mark are usually a reliable source........I'm not sure what the current exchange rate is, either. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 http://www.xe.com/ucc/ is your friend - US$1 = 60.8p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 So that's £12.74 each. Isn't that even cheaper than Peco Code 83 in England? OK you have to factor in shipping....... Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Something that doesn't seem to be covered in this thread, how prototypical is the track? are the ties the right length? How good is the spike representation? Are there regional/company/period differences in track design (of the weight of track the Peco code 83 represents) that are obvious and if so does the Peco track represent some better than others? I have a fair amount of knowledge of UK track differences; sleeper length, chair type, fabricated/cast crossing, sleeper arangement in turnouts, sleeper spacing and size at rail joints, etc. but not of US prototype so I would't know if it was right or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
warbonnetuk Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 All Both of the NMRA groups I'm involved with specify PECO Code 83 as the standard track for their respective modules. Of the group that has a fully working set up the layout has to be set up and dropped again after each operating session and has also been carted to a number of exhibitions over the year. In all that time we have no problems with the either track or points coming adrift either via use or transit 'bumps'. On the question of board joints then I would say that it's highly adviable to fix rail ends with something more solid than plastic chairs - my pref is PCB sleepers glued & Screwed to the baseboard or as an alternate soldering to small brass screws. The key to operating performance is having a relable baseboard desk and underlay (which is an entirely different can of worms!) as a base for your chosen system. I've learn from bitter experience that cutting corners on this will come back to bite you in the bum reagrdless of what track you have Dan Spalding Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Gringo Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 Something that doesn't seem to be covered in this thread, how prototypical is the track? are the ties the right length? How good is the spike representation? Are there regional/company/period differences in track design (of the weight of track the Peco code 83 represents) that are obvious and if so does the Peco track represent some better than others? I have a fair amount of knowledge of UK track differences; sleeper length, chair type, fabricated/cast crossing, sleeper arangement in turnouts, sleeper spacing and size at rail joints, etc. but not of US prototype so I would't know if it was right or not. Hi Tim, Peco Code 83 is based upon 130 lb per yard FB rail and is therefore a standard 'heavyweight' rail in common use on the major U.S. and some Canadian routes from the early 1950s. The rail is carried in finely moulded spikes (which are quite delicate and need careful handling) on ties measuring 30mm in length. They equate to the 'standard' U.S. tie of 7 ins. x 9 ins. x 8 ft. 6 ins. and the word 'standard' is in quotation marks as some roads used different lengths of ties and others 6 ins. x 8 ins. timbers, etc.. On the solid sections of the Peco web, the ties are set on near 5.5mm centers, which equates to about 21 ins. / 20 ins., or between 3020 / 3168 ties per mile. Again this compares pretty accurately to the 'standard' or average number of ties per mile, on a Class 1 North American road, although many roads use an even closer spacing on heavily used sections of track. After I started, the U.S. Prototype Track and Formation dimensions thread, I quickly discovered that there is/was no absolute 'standard' as such, for U.S. track. Each Railroad will use a particular set of track specifications and dimensions to satisfy the traffic demands and the terrain to be traversed. However, 130 lb rail is a pretty universal weight and that's probably why Peco chose it. However, the rail is certainly a bit on the 'heavy' side for short-lines and sidings, but by tweaking the tie spacing and over-ballasting, who is going to know? (Only the 'experts'!). I've been informed that the geometry of the Peco track is also reasonably accurate and I think that the Code 83 will satisfy most situations for those modelling North American railways from the 1950s steam-diesel transition period right up to the present day operations. Hope this helps. All the best, John. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I wanted to re-activate this thread (for purely selfish reasons). My cousin over here wants me to lay the trackwork for a shunting plank (I'll probably try the NS / BR & W interchange to see if it is interesting, at first) so I want to try the Peco Code 83 BUT with the Insulfrog points/turnouts for ease of wiring. The last time I used insulfrog was back in the '70's..............is it possible to get them to look reasonable with the use of painting/weathering? How to get rid of the plastic look on rail? I think Jez used them. Cheers, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Williams Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I've not tried it, but I would think using Humbrol 'Metalcote' paint and then burnishing (which you can do with the 'Metalcote' paints would produce a fairly realistic look. Paint could then be sealed with a varnish to improve longevity. Not sure which colour would be best, they do a range including 'steel' which, logically, one would expect to be the most suitable. I don't know if Humbrol paints are available in the US, although mail order would always be possible. Steel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Thanks, Steve. I had concerns that "metallic" paints might be conducive......... Btw is that your layout of Fairmont, Morgantown & Pittsburgh Railroad in December's Model Railroader? Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 The c83 insulfrogs *don't* have a huge plastic frog like the insulfrogs of old, the area of plastic is quite small. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Thanks, Martyn. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 The c83 insulfrogs *don't* have a huge plastic frog like the insulfrogs of old, the area of plastic is quite small. Beat me to it, Martyn... I've not long laid some Code 83 in my loft, with Insulfrog points (cheaper off Ebay!!) and the 'dead' section is really very small. You don't say if the layout is to be DC or DCC, but one thing worth doing is 'hardwiring' the points so that electrical continuity isn't reliant on the point blades alone. This loses the "self-isolating" feature of course, no probs for DCC (indeed desirable) but worth bearing in mind if using more than one loco with DC. Sorry, that may be a "granny/egg sucking" moment... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Williams Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Thanks, Steve. I had concerns that "metallic" paints might be conducive......... Btw is that your layout of Fairmont, Morgantown & Pittsburgh Railroad in December's Model Railroader? Best, Pete. Actually Pete, I think you are correct, 'Metalcote' does have metal particles in suspension. I think that is why it can be burnished. However, if coated with a varnish afterwards, that shouldn't be a problem. Re the layout in MR. No that is not me. Must be another Steve W. There are a lot of us about! Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Jordan, Good point I didn't ask that question.........................d'oh. Steve, yep, another Steve Williams then. I was going to congratulate you on the 6 foot long model coaling stage!!!!!!!! Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Yes, i'd second Jordan's hardwiring comments, the electrical contacts aren't that great out of the box - on the plus side it's designed to accept the extra connections you need to add (underneath - so add them before laying the track!) Although why Peco didn't supply it that way and make it properly ready to use is beyond me! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Williams Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Jordan, Good point I didn't ask that question.........................d'oh. Steve, yep, another Steve Williams then. I was going to congratulate you on the 6 foot long model coaling stage!!!!!!!! Best, Pete. That's longer than a lot of layouts! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 The only issue I have with the code 83 turnouts is that Peco chose to equip the headblocks with larger ties - not just longer, which would be correct, but bigger in all dimensions. Looks pretty daft to me, and almost a deal breaker. I'd have to chop these out and replace with standard size ties. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I think the "point blades" are a bigger problem to my eyes.............in that too much meat has disappeared. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I think the "point blades" are a bigger problem to my eyes.............in that too much meat has disappeared. Best, Pete. I'd agree with that too - the point blades could just as easily be made to replicate the real things, and not be 'half a rail' But then, I'm a bit of a track nut... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 But then, I'm a bit of a track nut... Yeah, I know! I'm going to build a 1:1 loose heeled turnout in my backyard - just to get it out of my system............. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Yeah, I know! I'm going to build a 1:1 loose heeled turnout in my backyard - just to get it out of my system............. Best, Pete. I have some photos that could help... Now that's what point blades should look like... These turnout components were lying on the ground at Picacho yesterday afternoon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Absolutely! I found a place near me called Tracks Unlimited that build turnouts - and transport them in two parts. Haven't been able to get close enough for photos however....... Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
long island jack Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Hi all Planing a new switching layout and thinking of using peco code 83 track,instead of my usual code 100 has anyone got any feedback good or bad Going to glasgow show friday,thought if there was any good deals on code 83 would pick some up Would like to use the no 8 points but i think they will be a bit big,has anyone used the no 5 with success, i like to get things in store well in advance,so they will be there when i'm ready to start the project cheers Ray from deepest west cumbria Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_long Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 It seems to be pretty well regarded even round these parts. Compared to code 100 its head and shoulders above. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevorsmith3489 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Hi Ray You might find this useful http://www.peco-uk.com/page.asp?id=pointplans I am using code 83 track on my latest layout https://kaleyyard.wordpress.com/ I like it! It is easy to work with and easy to obtain - I buy mine through Model Junction of Slough, their service is quick and they seem to carry the full range. The wooden sleepered track and turnouts look good. I only have one issue, the sleeper spacing of their code 83 concrete sleepered track is too wide - the same spacing as their OO code 75 streamline track. The pandrol clip detail is excellent so I am prepared to live with the compromise. All my locos run through the pointwork smoothly and I even have a four wheel trackmoile that runs through insulfrog points without stalling. Trevor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.