modifying peco points?

[Michaelaface]

has anyone on here either modified or know if its possible to modify the appearance of peco code 75 points so that they look more like finescale OO (sleeper size and spacing)

 

my idea for doing this would be to carefully remove the sleepers on the point and replace them with probably PCB sleepers (aside from the ones with the various mechanisms for operating the points) to a template made from templot

 

my reasoning for doing this is I want a layout in OO finescale, but my skills in building points aren't really up to standard and learning starts getting a bit expensive with buying all the various resources

 

so has anyone done this? and would it work?

[sub39h]

Have you considered buying points from Marcway? They make ready-to-place true "00 scale" points. They aren't cheap, but once you factor in faffing time trying to modify Peco points in this manner and factor in any points you might ruin whilst experimenting it may end up a similar price.

 

Marcway seem to have about 3 websites and I never know which is the most up to date or recent, but if you call them then they can send you out a leaflet with their points in it and for a small fee I believe they do a bag of points templates as well for layout planning. 

[Kenton]

&bsp;

so has anyone done this? and would it work?

yes and yes - there is at least one substantial topic on RMWeb regarding how to do it and with a number of photos. It is "relatively" easy but the end result and the work involved end up worse than building your own from one of the kits available.

 

Essentially it involves removing some sleepers and moving others and then replacing some with copper clad. So you see in the end it is about the same except you do not have to make your own 'V' or use gauges (though still advisable)

 

I'm having trouble finding the topic ATM from my saved bookmarks but its here somewhere. Found it - there are others and it is well worth searching.

 

As for templates there is always Templot (now free to download).

[Michaelaface]

ahh excellent, I don't mind the work, in fact I like the prospect of it being closer to building everything, and I would use the kits available but they're around £30-40 and the marcway points are a similar price

 

so with my restricted budget it just doesn't seem cost effective, unless I built everything from scratch which I've already tried but my V crossing and switch blades made those attempts unusable

 

either way it seems like a good intermediate step between moving from RTR track to handbuilt track 

[hayfield]

If you build turnouts in copperclad, it can be quite cheap, copperclad strip is £8.80 per pack which should do 3 turnouts. Rail you can either use old off cuts you have lying around, or a pack of 10 lengths is £10. one and a half lengths per turnout, so its under a fiver per turnout.

 

Kits are dearer as they use the plastic chair and sleeper system, ready made Vees and switch rails and may come with gauges.

 

You can build a chaired turnout using ply sleepers for about £10

 

No idea what Peco turnouts cost as build your own is more appealing, but there is something about doing it yourself that is satisfying

[Michaelaface]

yeahh I know I've already built some but my crossing V's and switch blades didn't come out very well and ruined all them, which is why I thought if I could just modify some peco points I'd be able to achieve that look and still have a set of points that worked

[gr.king]

I had a go a few years ago at removing the parts of a Peco point base that did not brace the key-parts of the point (such as the V, the check rails, the blade pivots and the tie-bar), replacing these with PCB sleepering and then adding some fairly basic chairs, and I thought the result not only pleasing, but more than adequate proof that Peco (whatever they'd been saying at the time about it "not being that simple") could do something very similar if they wanted to suit UK modellers. In my view, they can't be bothered to suit us because so many are daft enough to keep buying the "wrong" OO trackwork that they make to please overseas HO modellers. They'll continue to treat us with contempt until something happens to hurt their sales.

 

I've now also made a start on work towards some clip-in sections of moulded resin, realistically spaced sleepering, complete with decent chairs on the sleepers. One trial piece has proven that the method is perfectly workable, but I have a lot of other irons in the fire at present so I can't say when I might be able to announce "a Peco point makeover to scale appearance in ten minutes", or whatever it may turn out to be

[RFS]

You can greatly improve Peco code 75 points by removing all the chunky sleepers around the tie bar and replacing them with copper-clad ones, or alternatively just spare plastic ones from track off-cuts (which is what I have done).  The DCC Concepts Cobalt turnout instructions show you how starting on page 17 - http://www.dccconcepts.com/PDF_Downloads/cobalt_manual.pdf

 

This mod does require a point motor which is self-locking (Cobalt, Tortoise or Seep PM4) but the point looks far better.  Some modellers combine this with SMP Scaleway code 75 track.

 

The problem is that you cannot have "scale" OO track: the track gauge is 3.5mm/ft (HO) and our models 4mm/ft (OO).  So whatever you do with the sleepers, it will always be a compromise.

[hayfield]

yeahh I know I've already built some but my crossing V's and switch blades didn't come out very well and ruined all them, which is why I thought if I could just modify some peco points I'd be able to achieve that look and still have a set of points that worked

 

 

We all have been there, its just practice and each time you make one it gets better. If you are using Peco flatbottom rail its a bit more difficult than using bullhead. But by using a few simple processes, its not too difficult ending up with something that both looks good and works. Look through the track building threads and use the search facility

[Michaelaface]

We all have been there, its just practice and each time you make one it gets better. If you are using Peco flatbottom rail its a bit more difficult than using bullhead. But by using a few simple processes, its not too difficult ending up with something that both looks good and works. Look through the track building threads and use the search facility

 

yeah peco flatbottom was horrible to work with but the bullhead from C&L made things a lot easier and in my opinion they looked really good, but something always went wrong around that crossing V

 

 

 

Seriously, by the time all these mods / improvements have been caried out, you could have built a copperclad one (or two!)

haha I seriously doubt that as I wouldn't have to spend time building the V crossing or switch blades and cutting the various lengths of rail to size, but we shall see, that plus I'm yet to build a copperclad point that is useable

 

 

 

I had a go a few years ago at removing the parts of a Peco point base that did not brace the key-parts of the point (such as the V, the check rails, the blade pivots and the tie-bar), replacing these with PCB sleepering and then adding some fairly basic chairs, and I thought the result not only pleasing, but more than adequate proof that Peco (whatever they'd been saying at the time about it "not being that simple") could do something very similar if they wanted to suit UK modellers. In my view, they can't be bothered to suit us because so many are daft enough to keep buying the "wrong" OO trackwork that they make to please overseas HO modellers. They'll continue to treat us with contempt until something happens to hurt their sales.

 

I've now also made a start on work towards some clip-in sections of moulded resin, realistically spaced sleepering, complete with decent chairs on the sleepers. One trial piece has proven that the method is perfectly workable, but I have a lot of other irons in the fire at present so I can't say when I might be able to announce "a Peco point makeover to scale appearance in ten minutes", or whatever it may turn out to be

I find it really frustrating how inaccurate the RTR trackwork is, and it's one of those things that when you notice it, it really makes a massive difference, saying that there are plenty of layouts on here with peco code 75 that look brilliant, I'm pretty sure I've seen at least one with track made by Hornby that looked good, but finescale track always looks the best in my opinion 

 

and that'd be an awesome development if you could get it done!

[Richard Lee]

Marcway read made points are that expensive. and thier SMP plasitc kits are ok for small points

 

I tried making some of the SMP plastic kits, but had a bit of trouble with some stuff (such as the Hornby M7s) derailing when taking the curved route from the toe to heel (narrow end to wide end).  This seemed to be because there was a bit too much gap for the check rails.  I haven't thrown them out, because the Terriers were fine with them, and I will have a little Terrier only (plus rolling stock) project to do at some point.

 

What I want to do is to get hold of some phosphor-bronze strip or thin plasticard, and try sticking a bit on the check rails to try and reduce the gap between the check rails and the stock rails.

 

They were quite easy to make, even for a novice.  Hint: buy a file for metal from a general tool shop to do the frog and switch rails. 

 

'Wire-in-a-tube' point control works okay with them, whereas the ready-made Marcway ones are a bit stiffer.  Some people use sliding micro-switches attached to omega loops for 'wire-in-the-tube' because the microswitches can switch frog polarity.  That is one thing that I definately want to try.

 

Second Edit:  I concurr with Mickey's comment about filing rail in post #13.  Filing code 75 bullhead nickel-silver rail is easy with a file for metal.  I got my two from a shop for tools and building materials for about 8 Leva for two different sized ones (£1 = 2.2 Leva approximately).

[hayfield]

yeah peco flatbottom was horrible to work with but the bullhead from C&L made things a lot easier and in my opinion they looked really good, but something always went wrong around that crossing V

 

I would agree with you if building a turnout using chairs, but in copperclad ? 

 

1 Get a decent plan, Templot is probably the best, C&L etc

 

2 Get  some decent gauges, a couple of roller and perhaps a check rail gauge and a flange way gauge. Failing these a digital calliper. Please note there are code 75 and code 100 roller gauges, ensure you are using the correct gauge for the rail. Also nothing wrong with C&L roller gauges but don't use the check and flangeway parts of them unless you plan to re-gauge your wheels to match 00-BF

3 Have a couple of decent files

 

Plenty of threads on building turnouts on this site, please read up as you will learn from everyone's experience.  Quite frankly if you cant build a copperclad turnout you will struggle with converting a RTR turnout

 

The common crossings are quite simple, the Vee is just filing 2 pieces of rail and match them to the plan. The wing / crossing rails can be a bit of a problem, make them in 2 pieces if you are having trouble making the bends and set the first one using a straight edge against the Vee and use a strip of metal to set the flangeway gap

 

Lay the Vee first and fit at least the first wing/crossing rail before fitting the stock rail

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

Might I suggest that matching "standards" for back to back measurements, flange-way width, etc. are what is needed for smooth running. Modellers in EM and P4 are aware of this as they have to build their own track, but it isn't realised by many OO modellers.

 

As Hayfield outlines, using a set of gauges and following the correct and proven routine for assembling a point usually gets the right result.

[beast66606]

Seriously, by the time all these mods / improvements have been caried out, you could have built a copperclad one (or two!)

I beg to differ - I've built points in 00 EM and P4 including slips and crossings. I've also modified Peco points and whilst not arguing about appearance the time to modify a Peco point is seconds, building a point for exhibition - ie neat - use is half an hour or so, at least.

[Norm81]

Seriously, by the time all these mods / improvements have been caried out, you could have built a copperclad one (or two!)

True, but in my case I'd have a modified peco point I can still use and a copperclad one (or two) in the bin. At least for me personally it's not the time it's going to take that's the issue, it's that modifying a peco point carries less risk of scrappage than building one from scratch.

[griffgriff]

30 mins is good

 

I beg to differ - I've built points in 00 EM and P4 including slips and crossings. I've also modified Peco points and whilst not arguing about appearance the time to modify a Peco point is seconds, building a point for exhibition - ie neat - use is half an hour or so, at least.

I'm not sure you are differing.  30 mins is a ruddy good time to build a point. The OP wanted to strip a Peco point and solder the rails onto copper clad sleepers.  The striping process on its own would take me 30 mins at least if I was taking care not to bend anything. 

[beast66606]

How I/We (WFRM) did it

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=13627

[hayfield]

To be quite honest by the time you scrap the bits of a Peco turnout you don't want, there is not much left. A copperclad turnout built by a normal person will take more than 30 mins, but its not a race !! But if you like the look of a Peco turnout then by all means up scale it from H0 to 00

[Kenton]

I still feel that all the fuss about Peco OO track not looking "correct" is a total red herring.

 

If you are looking at the track at that detail and seeing it as offensive to your modelling "eye" then surely you will be equally offended by looking at RTR stock?

 

It is the start of a natural progression to true 4mm to EM or even P4 - the progression to changing the gauge into line with the scale. (I have never quite understood OOSF as if you can see OO gauge is wrong then the same must be true of OOSF, if you are going to build OOSF then why not build EM/P4)

 

Butchering a Peco point (with copper clad substitution) doesn't seem to be worth the effort other than an academic exercise.

[hayfield]

Kenton

 

In some respects you are correct in that to be really accurate the track gauge should be P4 or EM gauges, but with nothing to compare against a well made 00(sf) with fine flangeway gaps can look realistic. I have read that for some that thinner sleepers and their spacings are more in keeping with  the narrowing of the gauge to 16.5 mm

 

I am just looking at the overhaul effect, using the correct size sleepers (in 00 shortened by 2 mm) at the correct spacings along with a better representation of the crossing and exit of the turnout. An added bonus is using not only normal chairs but also the specialist chairs. But that's my opinion  and I can quite understand those who just want something that is functional to run their trains on.

 

Its just that bit in between that I find a little hard to understand, but that's me. 

[buffalo]

In some respects you are correct in that to be really accurate the track gauge should be P4 or EM gauges, but with nothing to compare against a well made 00(sf) with fine flangeway gaps can look realistic...

 

There's nothing "really accurate" about EM, the gauge is 1.9" undersize. It just looks much better than 7" undersize. As to "fine flangeway gaps", compared with P4, any form of 00 or EM is grossly oversize

 

Nick

[Kenton]

As I have said many a time before I cannot see the difference between P4 and EM, my eyesight simply cannot imagine that tiny difference. All the arguments in favour of OOSF come down to improved running and I will not disagree with that. It is still 16.5mm just like the stock that runs on it which is in effect NG.

 

To me the strongest argument to move to EM/P4 is always going to be "The RTL option from Peco just looks wrong" The strongest argument against EM/P4 is "I don't have the increased space requirement or cannot re-gauge all my stock)

 

There are plenty of people who are prepared to live with the sight of OO and content with it looking "wrong".

[hayfield]

Nick

 

Whilst P4 is much closer to the real thing, when scaling things down there has to be compromises and for some P4 track and wheel standards is just that bit too far. I must admit whilst admiring fine P4 layouts, I and many others would much rather watch an EM gauge layout working faultlessly that a P4 layout with problems.

 

Pendon is one shining example as is Liverpool Lime Street, at several feet away the odd 1/2 a mm is hardly noticeable. But thats not to take away from many fine P4 layouts

[Clive Mortimore]

 

There are plenty of people who are prepared to live with the sight of OO and content with it looking "wrong".

Hi kenton

 

That's me but I am following this thread to see how people have "improved" Peco points.

 

As for your other comments about P4, EM and 00SF I am in full agreement.

[buffalo]

John,

 

Did you miss the smiley? I was merely commenting on your wording.

 

Is it really necessary to drag out that old and inaccurate chestnut about P4 layouts not working? I believe there some that work rather well.

 

As to Kenton's inability to tell the difference, I think you are looking in the wrong place, it's not the gauge, but the flangeway gaps where the differences show up. Once you put stock on it, the wheel differences may also be quite visible.

 

Nick