modifying peco points?

[Andy Reichert]

The arguments about wheels and the width of flangeways are essentially a secondary consideration. The main and overwhelming argument in favour of building your own track is that it allows you to create pointwork on flowing curves, build complex formations, and in a cramped site tweak every last inch of space to fit. If you rebuild Peco turnouts, no matter how realistic you make them look you are still stuck with the original Peco geometry. There is no way you could build something like this with Peco turnouts, out of the box or rebuilt:  

 

 

 

Martin.

 

Dumb question.  Why do the sleeper spacings between those two picture examples look completely different?

 

Andy

[hayfield]

May be an optical illusion of one being 00sf and the other being EM/P4. Sleepers missing next to theTie bars in the bottom photo, Or just the angle the photo has been taken and or the track starts further away in one photo

[Clive Mortimore]

Nowhere did I suggest that folks should use incompatible track and wheel standards, or that those who are happy to modify or rebuild Peco turnouts shouldn't do so.

 

I simply felt that for many modellers the most significant objection to Peco is often overlooked in these discussions. It's not the poor appearance (which can be improved) -- it's the geometry (which can't). A lot of those who handbuild track are doing so not because they don't like the look of Peco, but because it can't be made to fit their desired track plan. For example it is impossible to create a proper gently curving crossover using Peco turnouts.

 

Martin.

Hi Martin

 

The ease of use is more important to many than the set geometry for most people using Peco points.

 

For you apparently not, but for quite a good number of us, its not a 'chore' at all, rather its a pleasure.

Regards

Keith

Hi Keith

 

Plonk, wire and play is more important to many than building. Lots of railway modellers neither have the skills, or the time to make everything. With examples like Dave's (Beast 66606) modified Peco points may be within the abilities and time for some modellers.

 

Those who feel that they do not have the skills or time to make their own points get turned off when threads like this become a battle ground over 00SF, P4, EM by those who make their own trackwork. All we want is to know how to improve our 00 trainsets.

[Michaelaface]

personally if I had the skills and funds I'd build everything in P4

also hand laid track makes the most sense for running as the track is built to the plan rather than the plan built to the track

unfortunately I'm not at a stage where I'm confident to commit resource's to building a layout like that, so I was going to go for modifying track that is guaranteed to work already

Ultimately my goal is to be able to build everything myself, because for some reason I enjoy that challenge, I'm just not there yet 

[beast66606]

Cough.

 

For real accuracy S4 is the way, P4 is a compromise ...

 

But let's stick to the question asked.

[Michaelaface]

well what ever they layouts featured on here are is what I'd dream to achieve http://www.scalefour.org/

[Andy Reichert]

Just out of interst does anybody still use S4 standards?

 

I understood that some think they do, but possibly without shaving their too wide P4 wheels down to code 72 from code 80. . . . . .

 

Andy

[Andy Reichert]

The built-in advantage of doing US modelling to a Proto standard, is that the RTR and the Proto use the same track gauge. Plus PECO makes a pretty presentable to scale US HO track range (83). So no need to modify the sleepers and spacing, etc. Just change the frogs and move the check rails out a bit.
 

 

Of course you have to like US outline and that does nothing for we UK ex-pats' acute nostalgia needs. . . . .

 

Andy

[Ben Alder]

For what it's worth, I have found that using a combination of C&L track and Peco points gives a satisfactory, for me at least, combination of looks and reliability, that enables me to concentrate on other aspects of modelling that I prefer. Time, ambition and a lack of space mean that point building is not a practical option, and with some attention to the points,  they can be made to blend in. I tidied up the tiebar area, and fitted C&L cosmetic chairs as far as was practicable to the points, and this  has made a positive visual impact to the overall appearance - the eye sees the flow of the chairs, and the sleeper differences aren't too obvious at normal viewing height- ballasting helps disguise matters as well.

 

A couple of shots to show this-please excuse the dreadful gap in the rails in the first- attic gets quite hot and I've had to allow for this.....

 

 

 

The whole process is one of these things that doesn't look at its best digitally, but when sitting at the layout it does create a continuity....

[Ben Alder]

Yes, and having "better" plain track helps the eye move over the point sleepering without being too aware of the discrepancies....

[Michaelaface]

that's excellent I wouldn't have thought of improving the look with simply chairs, they potentially have a greater visual impact than just sleeper spacing, from my point of view anyway, I tend to notice the chairs first 

 

I think I'll give that a go as well

[gr.king]

As to the "unavailability of flowing formations" if Peco points are used, that is not necessarily quite true. Several users of Peco points have demonstrated the scope for cutting away parts of the web and imparting gentle curvature to "straight" points. Have a look at the flowing curve of the whole Northern throat of the station on the thread "Grantham - The Streamliner Years". The cosmetically unimportant, but functionally vital curved throats of the fiddle yard on Gamston Bank also rely on this "altered" Peco geometry. Of course, this gives nothing like the freedom of form available with hand-built track, but it helps.

 

I'm not seeking to promote the use of Peco by the way, why should we use a product whose manufacturer refuses to cater for proper steam age British modelling? Even though I refer above to the "chore" of track building, that doesn't mean that I don't find it satisfying when I "get into it", but there are limits on the time that can be justified for some tasks when (as I find) there are so many modelling tasks to complete, and there are others who feel unaable to justify spending any time at all on track laying beyond clipping units together. My ideas on replacement of parts of the Peco point base are therefore simply a means of achieving a more acceptable compromise with the track. For me, the compromise cannot be acceptable without better spacing and fuller size of timbers than the standard Peco product provides, the chairs (without counting bolts or exact patterns) being almost equally important - which is why I am less satisfied with plain copperclad than I once was.

[hayfield]

For what it's worth, I have found that using a combination of C&L track and Peco points gives a satisfactory, for me at least, combination of looks and reliability, that enables me to concentrate on other aspects of modelling that I prefer. Time, ambition and a lack of space mean that point building is not a practical option, and with some attention to the points,  they can be made to blend in. I tidied up the tiebar area, and fitted C&L cosmetic chairs as far as was practicable to the points, and this  has made a positive visual impact to the overall appearance - the eye sees the flow of the chairs, and the sleeper differences aren't too obvious at normal viewing height- ballasting helps disguise matters as well.

 

A couple of shots to show this-please excuse the dreadful gap in the rails in the first- attic gets quite hot and I've had to allow for this.....

 

IMG_0072-crop.jpg

 

IMG_0080-crop.jpg

 

The whole process is one of these things that doesn't look at its best digitally, but when sitting at the layout it does create a continuity....

 

 

Ben

 

You have improved the look of the Peco points exceptionally well. The tiebar is a mine field in both RTR and hand built. Certainly the addition of chairs and changes to the sleepers are well worth the effort. And adding to the scenic side lifts the looks, with the addition of Wills point rodding and items of other track and track side furniture will also improve things greatly.

 

From memory you use the inside part of the chair on the outer part of the rail, as the keyed part of the chair is too tall and adding chairs to the inside part of the rail is not on again as the non keyed part is too tall. This also goes for copper clad turnouts, unless you do a Kenton and lift the rail above the sleeper

 

I can also accept that if you don't like doing something, have lack of time or ambition then you use what is available commercially

 

I must disagree about space. Last summer I built some turnouts whilst on holiday. Tools were limited to just a few, I built some on a small round table and had to pack everything away after each session, I filed the vees and switches on a brick wall outside. This is one discipline that can be built on a tea tray, well in 00 it can. Skills can be learnt and are minimal for building turnouts.

 

However nothing wrong with RTR track, even better when given added detail. But when you start to contemplate replacing sleepers etc it may be better to bite the bullet 

[hayfield]

As to the "unavailability of flowing formations" if Peco points are used, that is not necessarily quite true. Several users of Peco points have demonstrated the scope for cutting away parts of the web and imparting gentle curvature to "straight" points. Have a look at the flowing curve of the whole Northern throat of the station on the thread "Grantham - The Streamliner Years". The cosmetically unimportant, but functionally vital curved throats of the fiddle yard on Gamston Bank also rely on this "altered" Peco geometry. Of course, this gives nothing like the freedom of form available with hand-built track, but it helps.

 

I'm not seeking to promote the use of Peco by the way, why should we use a product whose manufacturer refuses to cater for proper steam are British modelling? Even though I refer above to the "chore" of track building, that doesn't mean that I don't find it satisfying when I "get into it", but there are limits on the time that can be justified for some tasks when (as I find) there are so many modelling tasks to complete, and there are others who feel unaable to justify spending any time at all on track laying beyond clipping units together. My ideas on replacement of parts of the Peco point base are therefore simply a means of achieving a more acceptable compromise with the track. For me, the compromise cannot be acceptable without better spacing and fuller size of timbers than the standard Peco product provides, the chairs (without counting bolts or exact patterns) being almost equally important - which is why I am less satisfied with plain copperclad than I once was.

 

 

You can get Peco track to flow to the geometry is is designed to and to a lesser degree curving it slightly. However you obviously have much greater freedom is designing / copying formations. We do have to accept compromises in all areas when making a model and concentrate on the areas that interest us

[hayfield]

I have just had a thought (might be a bit dangerous) whilst doing a couple of replies. A really composite rebuild or a Peco turnout.

 

Use a few copperclad sleepers at strategic places, but lifted up slightly to allow plastic chairs to fit. Then fit ply or plastic sleepers with chairs. As Peco is flatbottom rail then I guess you will have to use C&L ST base plates.

 

Or for some enterprising individual making a super detail pack of chairs that can be added to the turnouts

[Guest Bob S]

well what ever they layouts featured on here are is what I'd dream to achieve http://www.scalefour.org/

 

If that's where you want to be eventually, then persevere with the hand built track. My first copper clad point was disaster, but it gets easier, quicker, and allows you to have bespoke track formations that look far better.

 

However it's modified, Peco track's never going to look as good as hand built track.

 

A couple of track related books

 

http://www.2mm.org.uk/products/trackbook/       http://www.railwaybooks.org/page33.htm  (1/2 way down page)

 

Bob

[Michaelaface]

Okay so I had a go at it and while it's not my neatest work (out of practice) I thought it came out fairly well and they work!

however whether or not it's actually worth the effort doing this for a layout I'm still not sure

 

[dessire_luvals]

The arguments about wheels and the width of flangeways are essentially a secondary consideration. The main and overwhelming argument in favour of building your own track is that it allows you to create pointwork on flowing curves, build complex formations, and in a cramped site tweak every last inch of space to fit. If you rebuild Peco turnouts, no matter how realistic you make them look you are still stuck with the original Peco geometry. There is no way you could build something like this with Peco turnouts, out of the box or rebuilt:  

 

 

Martin.

Hi Martin

 

Truly honoured that you should have picked a picture of my efforts to prove your point.

 

Russell

[hayfield]

Russell

 

Because its a stunning piece of trackwork. And to be quite honest it will be easier and quicker to build from scratch than try and modify a turnout where some rails/parts are in plastic.

 

Any updates on your layout please