Peco O Gauge Set Track

[hartleymartin]

Hand built track is usually better than commercial stuff but it takes a whole lot of work to do it. I used to hand lay all my track. Timber sleepers with four spikes to hold the rails in place. A point is almost a days work from start to finish.

[81A Oldoak]

Hand built track is usually better than commercial stuff but it takes a whole lot of work to do it. I used to hand lay all my track. Timber sleepers with four spikes to hold the rails in place. A point is almost a days work from start to finish.

It's much quicker with rail in chairs.

[hartleymartin]

Indeed it is true, but not many lines used chaired bullhead rail here in Australia. We generally favoured the flatbottom rail, though I do recall that a few places had bullhead - the Morpeth Line being one that comes to mind, and I think some sections of of what is now Sydney CEntral did once.

[81A Oldoak]

Indeed it is true, but not many lines used chaired bullhead rail here in Australia. We generally favoured the flatbottom rail, though I do recall that a few places had bullhead - the Morpeth Line being one that comes to mind, and I think some sections of of what is now Sydney CEntral did once.

And that is the trouble when the prototype companies lay track as cheaply as possible without any consideration for the needs of future modellers. I have visited the site of the erstwhile Morpeth station on the line from East Maitland Junction.

[orford]

To be honest, I did hand build two turnouts for this layout, both dual gauge (32mm/16.5mm) but I wanted to try the new Peco Setrack turnouts, ostensibly to save time (which they did, despite the hassle) and just to see how they performed.

 

Here are the two which I scratch built, prior to ballasting, detail painting, etc.  The first takes the standard gauge off to the right whilst both gauges continue straight on, whilst the second allows the narrow gauge to leave the dual gauge track. No moving parts in this one! 

 

Don't think Peco have gotten around to dual gauge yet!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Simond]

Nice!

[F-UnitMad]

To be honest, I did hand build two turnouts for this layout, both dual gauge (32mm/16.5mm) but I wanted to try the new Peco Setrack turnouts, ostensibly to save time (which they did, despite the hassle) and just to see how they performed.

 

Here are the two which I scratch built, prior to ballasting, detail painting, etc.  The first takes the standard gauge off to the right whilst both gauges continue straight on, whilst the second allows the narrow gauge to leave the dual gauge track. No moving parts in this one! 

 

Don't think Peco have gotten around to dual gauge yet!

 

DSCF8967.JPG

 

DSCF8968.JPG

Ah yes - the second one nearly set off the Enemies of Frog Juicers into another tirade of hatred recently I thought it was a cracking piece of trackbuilding.

 

Hello everyone. My name is Jordan, & I'm a Frog Juicer user.

[dajt]

Looking at the point, the reaon appears to be this. The stockrail inner edge is machined away to accommodate the straight switchrail partway along the curve. Meanwhile the curved stockrail rests on simulated slider chairs, but is flexible and the chairs dont stop it from flexing slightly out of gauge. 

 

The way they've shaved the stock rails doesn't look like it helps. For quite a long way they've removed much of the head of the rail. Along with thin blades it looks like wheels could easily drop there as your photo shows.

[Simond]

Ah yes, the frog juicer, whose relationship to a microswitch is that of a steam hammer to a nut cracker.



Bigger than it needs to be
More expensive than it needs to be
But very effective!


Simon

Edited October 11, 2017 by Simond

[orford]

 In #409 I gave these points a positive review. Further testing since then has shown faultless running with RTR and six-coupled locos, but a problem emerged with some 0-4-0 locos with Slaters wheels.

 

My scratchbuilt 'Peckett' 1289 derailed on every point. This loco runs on driving wheels made for 21mm gauge using a 32mm gauge axle and has finer treads and flanges. I already knew that it needed spacer washers fitting between the wheel centres and axle ends to compensate for the fine flanges, so not a huge surprise if disappointing.

 

Next was the Y8 0-4-0T which runs on standard Slaters wheels and axles, it consistently derailed on one point. 

 

Derail1.jpg

 

Finally the 02 shunter, again on Slaters wheels, did exactly the same thing. This has one axle compensated but this made no difference.

 

Derail2.jpg

 

This happens consistently on one RH point but not the others, however measurements show no visible difference.

 

Derailpoint.jpg

 

Looking at the point, the reaon appears to be this. The stockrail inner edge is machined away to accommodate the straight switchrail partway along the curve. Meanwhile the curved stockrail rests on simulated slider chairs, but is flexible and the chairs dont stop it from flexing slightly out of gauge. 

 

I'm sure this is correctable with some modifications to the switchrail slider chairs, its just rather concerning to find it occurring with common short wheelbase locos using standard wheels. As I said, RTR locos and others such as Sentinels with longer wheelbases don't seem to be affected.

 

I'll probably contact the Peco Technical Advice Bureau next week to see if anyone else has found this. 

 

Dava

 

 

 

I purchased 8 of these 'setrack' points for my new 'industrial' layout, which being thus, has tight curves........at a total cost of almost £350.00.

 

As already noted above, the frog wires fell off two of them and the spring was missing from one.  I then found that the curved stock rail popped out on a third.

 

I have now found that ALL are almost a full millimetre wide on gauge between the fifth and seventh sleepers at the 'heel' end - there is no doubt that it is this which is causing the derailments with certain locomotives referred to by others in this thread. I am having the same problem with several locos and even some roiling stock.

 

And worse of all, I have now discovered that there are two distinctly different moulded tie bar lengths being used by Peco (two different manufacturers??).  See photographs below.  This has the effect of altering the difference between the blades and consequently the 'throw'. On the wider tie bar, the throw is barely sufficient to get some wheel sets through the point at all.

 

Hattons to their credit offered to replace but this would be a waste of time, since any replacements will presumably be exactly the same.  As I certainly cannot afford to waste nearly £350, I have taken the decision to rebuild the points at the tie-bar end using copper-clad sleepers to hold the gauge correctly. I will also replace the tie-bars with my own make.

 

But coming from a Company long famed for the quality of it's track, this is really not good enough, given the price being charged.

 

The first two pictures show the different length tie-bars.

 

 

 

The second two pictures show the effect on the 'throw' of the different length tie-bars.

 

 

 

The last two photographs show the over-'gauge' between sleepers five and seven ...the cause of the derailments mentioned earlier, compared with the 'correct' gauge a couple of sleepers further along.

 

 

 

 

COMMENTS PLEASE, PECO ???

Edited November 13, 2017 by orford

[MarcD]

Glad I didn't put my hand in my pocket now.

 

Marc

[PaulRhB]

Two different tiebars? Possibly from their standard range but certainly manufactured by Peco as they only buy in the rail.

As to ripped off for a millimetre out of gauge?????

Certainly could send them back or simply gently bend the rail to straighten it a fraction and bring it in gauge? A polite email to Peco so they can address the minor forming issue and they will probably offer to replace them but I doubt they will go beyond that if you start with accusing them of ripping you off.

A tad over dramatic and if you are proficient enough to make a new tiebar then sorting out the rail should be even easier.

Why is hyperbole and intolerance the first reaction so much?

[Simond]

350 quid?

[orford]

Two different tiebars? Possibly from their standard range but certainly manufactured by Peco as they only buy in the rail.

As to ripped off for a millimetre out of gauge?????

Certainly could send them back or simply gently bend the rail to straighten it a fraction and bring it in gauge? A polite email to Peco so they can address the minor forming issue and they will probably offer to replace them but I doubt they will go beyond that if you start with accusing them of ripping you off.

A tad over dramatic and if you are proficient enough to make a new tiebar then sorting out the rail should be even easier.

Why is hyperbole and intolerance the first reaction so much?

 

Sorry Paul - but I must beg to differ. You talk about a millimetre out of gauge as though it is of no consequence. But if that millimetre causes the wheels to drop between the rails and down into the four foot every time a loco or wagon runs through the turnout (and they are all the same), then quite simply the product is not fit for purpose, as it is incapable of doing the job for which it is intended........without user modification.

 

Yes - I am perfectly capable of bending the rail into gauge...and no doubt will have to, in order to rectify the situation. 

 

But the point is - I shouldn't have to do so at that price.  At £43.00 each, the points are hardly cheap  Eight turnouts @ £43.00 plus postage cost me £350.00 - a very sizeable chunk of the budget for the entire layout. And by any reasonable argument this problem is totally unacceptable.  I'm sorry - but it is.

 

I have used Peco points exclusively for over 40 years in 'N' Gauge, '009', 'OO', 'OO fine', O-16.5', 'O' (regular) and 'G'.....and I am simply making the point (sorry - pun not intended) that in my opinion these are simply way below their usual excellent standard.

Edited November 13, 2017 by orford

[orford]

350 quid?

 

Eight x £43.00 each, plus postage = £350.

[PaulRhB]

I didn't say it wasn't a fault in fact I mentioned the forming error I was only offering it as a solution to save sending them back as you seem happy to redo the tiebar.

I also don't see why you need to remove it from the chairs if you do it on the moving blade to straighten it a fraction as shown by the yellow line. From the previous posts I'd just pop in a piece of round bar at the wide to gauge point you show and gently push the blade across to ease the bend there.

 

You demanded a response when Peco has no official presence on the forum when an email to them or call would give you a much faster and direct route. I've found them very helpful in the past but again I wouldn't start by accusing them of ripping you off as you said because it doesn't encourage a particularly generous response

Edited November 13, 2017 by PaulRhB

[orford]

I didn't say it wasn't a fault in fact I mentioned the forming error I was only offering it as a solution to save sending them back as you seem happy to redo the tiebar.

I also don't see why you need to remove it from the chairs if you do it on the moving blade to straighten it a fraction as shown by the yellow line. From the previous posts I'd just pop in a piece of round bar at the wide to gauge point you show and gently push the blade across to ease the bend there.

IMG_1157.JPG

 

You demanded a response when Peco has no official presence on the forum when an email to them or call would give you a much faster and direct route. I've found them very helpful in the past but again I wouldn't start by accusing them of ripping you off as you said because it doesn't encourage a particularly generous response

 

Paul - Fair comments.... Have messaged you direct.

Edited November 13, 2017 by orford

[Dava]

Orford has simply confirmed, with informative measurements, what I reported back in July. There is a problem with variability of manufacture in these points which will result in derailments. From a quality assurance point of view this is not really acceptable and an atypical glitch for Peco. Those conversant with ISO14001 will recognize it as a design/calibration/non conforming product issue [the QC jargon may have changed since I practiced this] which needs resolving.

 

I do think we should take the heated emotion out of it, understandable though this may be for disappointed buyers. It just needs reporting to Peco for them to address it. Which in retrospect I should have done but have had other pressing matters to attend to.

 

Dava

[PaulRhB]

Agreed tell Peco and they will address it and good photos showing the problem like those above from Orford will help them

Edited November 14, 2017 by PaulRhB

[PaulRhB]

Paul - Fair comments.... Have messaged you direct.

Thanks Don and that explains it nicely and I agree completely that it needs to be sorted at source, particularly the tiebars as they need a more sophisticated fix.

[Happy Hippo]

The reason I made my own points was so that if anything went wrong, it was my fault only.

 

My industrial method of garden railway points did not transpose neatly into an indoor setting with 31.5mm track (made from Peco components) that were driven by the Mega point servo control system.

 

I found out that Much Cursing in the Shed is not a village in the Cotswolds  (But all is sorted now) 

 

Back onto topic, an acquaintance of mine has bought a number of these set track points, and to date has had no issues with derailing, but having seen the gauge variances, I'll have to take a decent Starrett vernier gauge down to the club and do some measuring up.

[Sturminster_Newton]

I've looked at the use of the set track as the basis of a up scaled Box File layout.

 

Yes I will be using Dapol, Heljan and Ixion locomotion and a few items of r-t-r O-gauge stock.

 

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with chequebook muddling, it starts many on their journey into railway muddling.

 

I have also looked at Smerty-two pointwork which is to a tighter radius than the O-gauge set track. (R1?)

 

The O-gauge set-track pointwork being to R2(?)

 

Whilst O-gauge purists will be preparing the faggots and driving in the stake for a ritual burning of a heretic at the stake.

 

I did wonder if O gauge stock will grumble around with less problem as Smerty-two uses a heavier gauge rail, so less spreading of the gauge due to flexing under the presence of O scale locomotives with fine scale wheel-sets.

 

I have an acquaintance that runs O-gauge r-t-r on his old Smerty-two garden line with little problem.

Edited January 21, 2018 by Sturminster_Newton

[Northroader]

I’ve had a good look at a setrack point, and decided I can’t use it, the geometry is problematic. This is because the curvature off the points end continues on through the crossing, rather than straightening out, with the result the diverging track is at quite a wide angle. If you’re using it on an oval layout it could be really useful, as it can just be laid in on a continuous curve.

[Ian Kirk]

Hi,

I presume that Peco  produced O gauge Setrack as a scaled up version of their other setracks.  I think that what some modellers were really looking for was shorter tighter radius points and to get these from setrack you would have to cut these down to avoid what Northroader points out.  Possible but not what many wanting RTL track would want to do.

S-N,  Boxfile style layouts usually involve an industrial scene which in real life involved tight curves. Four coupled locos and standard wagons usually had a design minimum radius of one chain (66 ft) which in O  gauge would be less than 18 inches so you should not get any criticism from O gauge purists.

 

best wishes,

 

Ian

[Northroader]

Looking at their catalogue, the OO and N setrack points are laid out the same way, with the curve continuing through the crossing, rather than straightening out. The best way to show the problem is if you use two to form a crossover between parallel tracks. You can trim the divergent legs back nearer to the crossing and shorten the length of the crossover and bring the tracks closer together, but you still finish up with a S -curve though the crossover, leading to poor running. Ideally you should be looking for a reverse curve with a short stretch of straight to transition between the curves, which you get if the diverging track is straight through the crossing, which the streamline points do.