Peco O Gauge Set Track

[The Bigbee Line]

I popped into the Kidderminster model railway shop. The Peco rep was there with a sample. It's the same geometry as the straight and curve. Metal check rails and a unifrog (dead or alive if you choose).

Looks ideal for industrial or dockside use. If you want to make a crossover the curved legs can easily be trimmed. Worth cutting out some templates.

Well done Peco.

[The Bigbee Line]

I did a little cut and paste tonight, doesn't look too bad...

 

[3 link]

Looks fine for 0-4-0's. : )

Edited May 9, 2017 by 3 link

[The Bigbee Line]

Looks fine for 0-4-0's. : )

I've seen a picture of Wissington going round what looked like a square corner. Looking on old maps the railway outside the Sugar factory just follows the farm lanes. I mean to visit some of these roads to get an idea how tight the curves were...

[Simond]

If your area of interest is in the bit they've done, the National Library of Scotland has produced an overlay system in which 25" to the mile maps are placed accurately over the Google Earth database. Most of mainland U.K. Is available. The maps are very detailed.

 

Typical 0-6-0 locomotives would handle curves down to around 5 chains (110 yards) at "dead slow". 0-4-0s with dumb buffers could certainly manage less. According to Wikipedia, the Fowler dock tank could manage 2.5 chains, 55 yards, or 1157mm to scale.

 

Best

Simon

[The Bigbee Line]

If your area of interest is in the bit they've done, the National Library of Scotland has produced an overlay system in which 25" to the mile maps are placed accurately over the Google Earth database. Most of mainland U.K. Is available. The maps are very detailed.

 

Typical 0-6-0 locomotives would handle curves down to around 5 chains (110 yards) at "dead slow". 0-4-0s with dumb buffers could certainly manage less. According to Wikipedia, the Fowler dock tank could manage 2.5 chains, 55 yards, or 1157mm to scale.

 

Best

Simon

It is an excellent web site. There are blank areas on the 25". But where available is an excellent modellers research tool.

Does anyone know if they are filling in the missing bits?

[Ian Kirk]

Hi,

Short wheelbase wagons and small 0-4-0ST were expected to be able to go down as low as one chain radius (about 18 inches in our scale) so they should have no problems. The short wheelbase 0-6-0T J88s at Kirkcaldy Harbour seem to have gone around bits of roughly130ft. So it would seem that small locos will run and look prototypical on set track points. When John Cameron had A4 Union of South Africa on his farm at Lochty the track had been re-located from a local colliery. The line into it's shed was over a pair of points which were really too tight for it. Being big and heavy it did go round though very slow with great grinding creaking. It literally re gauged the point every time and we had to work on this track weekly until the locomotive and track gang reached a compromise. (I suspect that repeated repairs in fact realigned the curve slightly to suit what the loco needed). I see a lot of uses for set track points in industrial/harbour locations but hope that people don't want to run expresses over them. When I saw the track geometry I thought that it might be to give the sort of clearances you would need for the awful overhang you will get with full length coaches or large locomotives.

 

best wishes,

 

Ian

[Nearholmer]

There are two ways of looking at tight radius 0 gauge track:

 

- what might prototypically run round it; and,

 

- what will run happily round it in model form, using the (whisper it quietly) pretty slack 'finescale' standards.

 

Chose the right couplings (drop-links) and the range under the second heading is huge.

 

I suspect that there is a bit of a "never the twain shall meet" thing between hi-fi and slightly low-res modellers, but let nobody kid you: you CAN run a lot of, surprisingly large, 0 gauge stock around c1 metre radius, and to do so is not illegal, immoral, nor will it make you fat.

 

Done thoughtfully, it doesn't even look too 'eye poking'.

 

Kevin

Edited May 10, 2017 by Nearholmer

[PatB]

As I've said before, I paced out a 90 degree curve still extant at Gloucester docks a while ago and, based on my stride length and some rapid mental arithmetic, it came out as pretty much bang on R1. Whilst I don't know how the dock lines were worked, I'd  assume that locos of some description used to go round it.

[Marshall5]

There was a very sharp 'balloon loop' at the west end of Bolton Trinity Street goods warehouse but the wagons were pulled around it by capstan not locos IIRC.

Ray.

[Simond]

Ian

 

one chain - I can imagine the vehicle going round, but I only assume they had "another chain" to extend the couplings?

 

best

Simon

[The Bigbee Line]

I seem to remember reading of plates being used to prevent buffer locking.

Trimming the Peco points will mean there is no transition (straight) between the two opposite curves. In an ideal world an short straight would help. I wonder if they'll do a short Y.

Not likely to happen, but a curved point to branch off to a loop on the next larger radius. It would be quite long, but look quite smart.

[Happy Hippo]

Will a Xuron cutter chop this rail OK?

 

I'm used to Code 200, which I have to saw, and I don't want to snap the jaws of my cutter, 'cos I already did that with the previous pair, by accidentally attempting to cut steel wire, which I thought was NS!

 

K

I've used a Xuron cutter on Peco Code 124 rail with no problems.

 

I would never dream of using one on any of the rail I use for the garden line.

 

I tend to use a cutting disc in the mini drill for the code 200 plus stuff out there.

[alfsboy]

I just fancy an 0 gauge train set on floor  like wot I did way back when .It probably wont get attacked by cowboy and indibums but may well see a few Lego batman attacks and the odd Spiderman .

[Nearholmer]

Bigbee

 

There are several ways of minimising buffer-locking: wide buffers; wires between buffer heads; plates; etc.

 

But, I strongly recommend using drop-link couplers. These are a bit like three-link, but use a rigid link, rather than a chain. The link is made long enough to keep the buffers ever-so-slightly apart, and all forces, pushing and pulling, run through the link.

 

The shape of the hook " mouth" needs a bit of care, to prevent the link jumping out when pushing, but otherwise it's dead simple.

 

You can even solder-up-rigid the chain of a three link coupling, to create the rigid drop-link, if appearance bothers you.

 

But, you will probably find that three-links, and standard buffers, are OK on typical four-wheel wagons, provided there isn't too much end-float in the axle bearings.

 

I can propel heavy 10+ wagon trains round my coarse (not fine) scale layout, which has reverse curves through crossovers, using drop-link couplers ...... they are one of the great (almost) forgotten inventions from the dawn of model railways.

 

Kevin

[Ian Kirk]

Hi Simon,

 

One chain it certainly was. Murphy's Law means I can not at the moment find my old RCH diagrams but attach a scan of a diagram for a ten foot wheelbase BR standard van. This gives minimum radius of 21 meters which works out roughly to one chain. Even the long wheelbase "blue spot" fish van in the same series of diagrams gives 31M as it's minimum. I think that the existing coupling chains would probably be OK. In the same way that the A4 regauged it's track the real wagons could make proper use of the sprung buffers/drawbar without pulling the stock off the rails as a model would. Unfortunately we can not scale down the laws of physics or perhaps it is not so unfortunate. As Kevin says we can run suitably designed model stock, with the right compromises, round tight curves at speeds which in real life would cause the locomotive to go straight on and/or roll over.

The Ruston&Hornsby 88DS which was designed for taking wagons into tight places had a design min. radius of 60ft. It also featured large buffers which were presumably intended to prevent buffer locking.

 

best wishes,

 

Ian

Edited May 10, 2017 by Ian Kirk

[Dava]

The smallest Peckett 0-4-0Ts would go down to 35 feet radius curve according to the catalogue, the Ruston 48DS would be about the same. A chain is 66 feet in old money. Ideal for docks, gas, chemical works etc.

 

Dava

[rue_d_etropal]

The old Lima O gauge track was 70cm radius, and ironically because it used code 100 rail could be considered suoer finescale!  Rivarossi and Atalas used to produce their own O gauge track, and I think that was heavier rail(code 200?) but still similar small radius, and no problems with running.

The Unifrog is one of the best, but possibly least talked about new innovations Peco have brought in. I think it has only been with some narrow gauge track up tll now. Hopefully it will eventually replace Electrofrogs, and possibly even be used on Setrack in OO and N gauge, Then everyone wil be happy. Also might mean the asymetrical points willl be done, and it will be easier for morepeople to switch to finer rail.

Too many seem to be happy to grumble about something that is easy to fix. If you want ponts for big locos and long coaches use the bigger points. These points are more suited to those with smaller locos and wagons.

My old Rivarossi 060 will happily go round my Faller(15in radius?) curves with no problems. Buffer lock might be the main problem. Ihave done my 3D pinted inset point in 15in radius, and I think also 2ft radius. Beyond that and the point gets a bit big. My Gauge One point is 2ft radius, and will allow a small layout to be built easily. I am even thinking of one using a boxfile! 

Industrial railways were often very small, and need small radius points .

 

Wish  could have got down to Derby this year.

Edited May 10, 2017 by rue_d_etropal

[Simond]

Simon,

 

Please don't think I'm grumbling, whilst it isn't my bag, I'm very happy with the relatively sudden and quite significant growth of RTR stock, and RTP track, it can only be a good thing for our branch of the hobby, and (at least some of) today's RTR modellers will be the kit builders and scratch builders of tomorrow, it's how I started, and I guess same is more or less true for every other modeller - it's just a case of trying to stretch oneself a little bit, and having examples to which to aspire. Plenty of those on here, the G0G site & Western Thunder.

 

That said, I am a little surprised by the geometry Peco have chosen, it doesn't seem to me to be the optimum. But given that they run an extremely successful manufacturing business with financial results I'd be delighted to achieve, I guess they do know what they're doing.

 

Ian,

 

Thanks for the reference, I didn't disbelieve you, but I remain surprised that a normal 3-link coupling would be able to be used with such a radius. A cricket pitch is one chain, it seems extraordinarily tight. I do remember the shunting tractors on the docks in Birkenhead & Wallasey as a kid ( I made a model one from some matches and an Airfix JCB!) and I can see that they (and the old 'orse) would have been a very good solution for such trackwork.

 

Does anyone know if it was possible to directly pull wagons around such curves, or was a shunting rope or extra link needed?

 

Best

Simon

[Nearholmer]

Simon

 

In some special applications, a rigid bar coupling is used, to do exactly what the drop-link coupler that I keep banging-on about does on a model: maintain a fixed distance between vehicles, and ensure that all the forces, pushing and pulling, run through the draw-gear, with little or no slack in the coupling.

 

Of course, sensible railways use various forms of centre-coupling that achieve the same thing, and have done since the mid C19th, knuckle-couplers probably being the most common ones on mainline railways.

 

Rigid bars are used on very tightly curved industrial railways, on street tramways, and for other special jobs, and, if they have to be fitted to the hook of a typical three-link coupler, the end has to be specially shaped to engage, and not jump out.

 

They seem to be rarely photographed, but I have found two pictures, both involving attaching specialist vehicles to an ordinary (different in each case) coupler.

 

But, there were so many other ways of moving wagons .......

 

Kevin

[Northroader]

On very tight curves, I like to use a single long link coupling, long enough to stop buffer faces from touching, and having the drawhook slotted so that it can push as well as pull:http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_01_2016/post-26540-0-01266700-1453841125.jpeg sorry, pretty, it ain't, I find propelling is more of a problem than pulling. Otherwise, the kadees knuckle couplers do come into their own in this application.

Edit, looking up the thread a bit, I see where the points have been shortened to make a crossover. The radius is carried through for a longer way on this point, with less straight at the crossing end. If you do shortening, you end up with stock running through a S-curve, rather than a reverse curve, i.e. with a straight bit in the middle, and this can lead to tears.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Northroader

[tractionman]

It is an excellent web site. There are blank areas on the 25". But where available is an excellent modellers research tool.

Does anyone know if they are filling in the missing bits?

The NLS are working to fill in the gaps in the current coverage of the OS 25" scale sheets. Some of the historic maps are available to view as static images on the NLS website but not available as overlays.

 

The NLS should be commended for making all this mapping publicly available for free.

 

All the best,

 

Keith

[daifly]

The NLS are working to fill in the gaps in the current coverage of the OS 25" scale sheets. 

 

They told me that last time I was there - in 1984! Wales still remains a big 'black hole'.

 

I would, however, echo your commendation!

 

Dave

[The Bigbee Line]

On very tight curves, I like to use a single long link coupling, long enough to stop buffer faces from touching, and having the drawhook slotted so that it can push as well as pull:http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_01_2016/post-26540-0-01266700-1453841125.jpeg sorry, pretty, it ain't, I find propelling is more of a problem than pulling. Otherwise, the kadees knuckle couplers do come into their own in this application.

Edit, looking up the thread a bit, I see where the points have been shortened to make a crossover. The radius is carried through for a longer way on this point, with less straight at the crossing end. If you do shortening, you end up with stock running through a S-curve, rather than a reverse curve, i.e. with a straight bit in the middle, and this can lead to tears.

Agreed, you could go back to the end of the checkrail and add a short section of straight, OR avoid crossovers and any reverse curves. I'm sure people with more skill than me will enjoy the challenge.

[Nearholmer]

I'm beginning to develop ideas for a tiny layout using these points, here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/122614-east-anglian-branch-lines-c1955-60/page-2&do=findComment&comment=2718300

 

K