coachmann Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 The Peco Streamline HO 83 Line track system looks interesting to me for various reasons but in particular because of the sweeping large radius point. I wondered if anyone had incorporated this track into their British outline layouts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium cnw6847 Posted May 6, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 6, 2012 from what I recall the sleeper spacing is close than peco code 75 & 100 to match the US prototype so it may look a bit odd mixed with other track. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted May 7, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 7, 2012 As said before the sleeper spacing is tighter than Pecos british track so even more likely to call attention, plus there are spikes rather than chairs holding the rail. Here's the link to all the plans on PECOs site http://www.peco-uk.com/page.asp?id=c83 and the large radius tunouts http://www.peco-uk.com/imageselector/Files/Track-templates/c83/SL-8381%20&%20SL-8382.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzie Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 83-line should not look right, and I have only used it on it's own, but it does look OK, and the metal check rails are much nicer than the plastic ones used on the 75/100. It is much more fragile though, easy to dislodge the check rails when cleaning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted May 7, 2012 Author Share Posted May 7, 2012 Thanks PaulRhB for the link. This has been massively helpful. Comparisons shown below are between Peco Code 83 American (drawings) and Peco code 75 (models). The first shows track crossing an adjacent track. It is not possible attaching the largest Code 83 point to the diamond due to different geometry (the tracks will not run parallel), and so the middle radius point is shown with the diamond crossing. Overlaid are a large radius Code 75 point and diamond and then the pair are shown side by side... Below is a comparison between a Code 75 large radius point and the Code 84 large radius point... The Code 75 and Code 83 curved points appear to use similar radius but the geometry is different as seen by overlaying a 75 on top of the 83 drawing.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted May 10, 2012 Author Share Posted May 10, 2012 To save me the expence of buying a Code 83 point to mess around with, has anyone mixed Code 83 with Code 75? And if so, how was the "problem" of different rail heights overcome? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
squeaky Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 I have a Peco code 75 crossing on my layout and the rest of the track is Peco code 83, I didn't do anything about the rail height and to be honest it hasn't been a problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allegheny1600 Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Hi Larry, I too, have never had a problem mixing the two systems - the height difference is nominally just 8 thousandths of an inch! What is really handy is that code 83 fish-plates are an excellent fit to code 75 rail! Cheers, John E. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted May 10, 2012 Author Share Posted May 10, 2012 Thanks fr the feedback. I now got a #8 SL-E8381 large radius point on order. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 I have a Peco code 75 crossing on my layout and the rest of the track is Peco code 83, I didn't do anything about the rail height and to be honest it hasn't been a problem. We have c83 on the scenic bits and c75 in staging and similarly no problems using them together. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunshine coast Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Hi Larry, I too, have never had a problem mixing the two systems - the height difference is nominally just 8 thousandths of an inch! What is really handy is that code 83 fish-plates are an excellent fit to code 75 rail! Cheers, John E. That will be because they are the same fishplates...! just a different coloured packet .... Regards Trevor .. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted May 23, 2012 Author Share Posted May 23, 2012 The Peco Code 83 largest radius point arived today. Very impressive it is too. Shown below beside the British large radius point.... A Hornby Fowler 2-6-4T was used to show the deflection of the pony truck. Below on the Code 75 large radius point and below that on the Code 83 point.... The angle at the 'V' is shallower than on the English counterpart and so there is less deflection as stock passes over the USA Code 83 point. The difference in rail height between Code 75 and 83 is shown below. It looks bad but coaches passed over the joint smoothly enough. If I adopt Code 83 I'll also buy Code 83 track as well. Decision time over the coming weeks as to what to do. Whatever I choose will involve buying new points (the old ones are untrustworthy now). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted May 23, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 23, 2012 Larry, I agree with you that the code 83 crossing angle is shallower & therefore gives less deflection, BUT - those sleepers! We grumble about the code 75 sleepers being narrow & closely spaced, but the code 83 version is far worse in my view. As an alternative to consider, have you looked at Tillig? Some others on the site have used it, the specification looks good and there are some self-assemble kits at lower cost. Available from International Models Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Have Peco reused the same switchblades though, they look the same length at least.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted May 24, 2012 Author Share Posted May 24, 2012 Have Peco reused the same switchblades though, they look the same length at least.. You mean the switchblades off the Code 75 track? They can't have as the code 83 rail is deeper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted May 24, 2012 Author Share Posted May 24, 2012 Might have to modify the title of this thread........I'm carrying out further trials and have ordered a handcrafted SMP/Marcway '00' 72inch radius point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allegheny1600 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Larry, I agree with you that the code 83 crossing angle is shallower & therefore gives less deflection, BUT - those sleepers! We grumble about the code 75 sleepers being narrow & closely spaced, but the code 83 version is far worse in my view. As an alternative to consider, have you looked at Tillig? Some others on the site have used it, the specification looks good and there are some self-assemble kits at lower cost. Available from International Models It looks really beautiful track but I did find it to be rather "delicate"! Also the connection between tie bar and point blades is particularly vulnerable. See here for some pictures of the Tillig: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/3363-flixborough-exchange-sidings-withdrawn/ Despite my earlier enthusiasm for Tillig (& disdain for Peco track!), I have now returned to using the Devon product for my H0 modelling efforts! HTH, John E. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 You mean the switchblades off the Code 75 track? They can't have as the code 83 rail is deeper. I was more suggesting they may have used the same tooling jigs tbh, they just seem to be the same length from the photos making it look like quite a sharp loose heel pair of switches with a higher crossing angle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted May 26, 2012 Author Share Posted May 26, 2012 The photo below shows the Peco Code 83 large radius point beside a Marcway 72ins radius point. Both are very nearly the same length as can be seen. Irrelavent information is the Peco has 56 sleepers against the Marcways 33. The latter is of soldered construction using Code 75 bullhead section rail and is sprayed black. Decisions... decisions.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brossard Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 Well, in my opinion Coachman, the Marcway looks like a British point and is much finer than the nearest Peco UK point. No contest in my mind. The code 83 (it really does look good though, apart from the blades) looks, well, American - it wouldn't do for me. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted June 16, 2012 Author Share Posted June 16, 2012 A Code 83 diamond (Insulfrog) and Code 83 No.6 point (Electrofrog) arrived today so I carried out a few experiments after wiring up some track to a DC Gaugemaster controller with brake control. Below are comparison shots between the longer code 83 diamond and Code 75 diamond attached to a 60 inch radius point... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted June 27, 2012 Author Share Posted June 27, 2012 It is oft repeated that todays track is okay with rtr wheelsets unless one has deep flanges as on Lima wheels. Good, that doesn't apply to my locos then................Or so I thought. After setting up some track with a Peco HO Code 83 point and Diamond crossing, I began testing all my locos for stalling on the Insulfrog diamond. Every Bachmann and Hornby loco performed faultlessly until it came to the LMS 'Crab' 2-6-0. This loco didn't like the point let alone the diamond! I checked the driving wheel back-to-back but the loco continued to buck its way over the frog. When the point was held at eye-level and the loco pushed over the frog, the wheels visibly climbed above rail height. It was at this point (no pun intended) that I realised my two Bachmann 'Crab' locos have wheels with deeper flanges than are usually found on todays locos. What was happening was a plastic web between the code 83 frog was lifting the flange. The picture below shows the brown raised plastic 'web', which presumably supports modern finescale flanges through the frog.... A 'Crab' wheel before it reaches the frog.... ....And showing it lifted by the 'web' above rail level at the frog..... This shot shows the difference between an up-to-date Bachmann flange and that on a 'Crab'.... I have learned today that the 'Crab' currently available has finer flanges. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted July 15, 2012 Author Share Posted July 15, 2012 I am currently getting a run time error when accessing Marcway's site. I wondered if anyone knows the radius of the Marcway 4mm/00 single slip please and could post an image of one on their layout? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted July 15, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 15, 2012 If you don't mind the American sleeper ("tie") size and spacing, you might prefer to go for Shinohara Code 83 as there is a wider range of points available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted July 15, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 15, 2012 I am currently getting a run time error when accessing Marcway's site. I wondered if anyone knows the radius of the Marcway 4mm/00 single slip please and could post an image of one on their layout? IIRC, they produce more than one single slip as a "standard" model and, for very little more, will make to any size/radius you require. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.