Bill Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 I am just dipping my toe into the O gauge waters, so please be patient... So I have a few questions about track neeing some answers - going haring off down the wrong road with O gauge looks to be expensive Is it possible to join Peco Code 143 Flatbottom track to their Code 124 Bullhead track using Peco joiners? Which track type is better supported by the suppliers? Also which track is preferable to use? Is it a matter of era? etc... There are probably more important questions that I should be asking... So feel free to give me a lecture Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Siddall Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 I'm afraid I can't answer your question about 'rail joiners' Bill but I bet you there's someone who can. On the subject of rail profile, as I understand it anyway, 'bullhead' rail was the British standard until replacement by 'flat-bottomed' rail started on heavily trafficked lines in the 1950s. 'Bullhead' however lingered on (and may indeed still do) on lightly used branchlines, spurs and on sidings. As another newbie to the scale, were it not for the availability of prototypically accurate track featuring detail I can actually see and appreciate I'd have gone for Peco, and I did (briefly) consider the possible cost-saving option of buying second-hand Peco points and improving them cosmetically. However the prices I saw examples going for on a certain well-known auction site were not far off the cost of new and it proved difficult to tell whether I was looking at the old or new versions! Apart from time I can't see a significant difference between the cost of C&L components and ready-to-lay new Peco so I'm going with C&L for its prototypical fidelity. However I'd suggest you shouldn't be allow yourself to be over-influenced by my choice, more by what you want to achieve, your modelling priorities, how long you want it all to take ...and above all; how much enjoyment you'll get from your conclusion. I'll no doubt still be building track (and hopefully loving it though probably muttering and cursing) long after anyone starting at the same time with Peco is happily into the running phase and I'll certainly have to work harder to achieve Peco's practical operational efficiency and running qualities! There seem to be several of us all at a similar stage in our 'conversion' at the moment and for me it's been the help and advice from fellow RMWeb members which has been the greatest source of inspiration. Bon voyage... David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poggy1165 Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 As an aside, Exactoscale produce functional fishplates in plastic and brass - the latter will conduct electricity across the joint, and either looks better than a PECO rail joiner. I don't know for a fact but I would guess the larger PECO rail joiner could be squeezed with pliers to fit the smaller rail section; possibly wouldn't look pretty but would still carry the juice. As has been said above the choice of bullhead/flatbottom depends on your era and location. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Siddall Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 As an aside, Exactoscale produce functional fishplates in plastic and brass Poggy you star! I saw (and then forgot to bookmark) a thread photo a while back showing a C&L point which featured somebody else's exquisite moulded fishplates twixt the vee and the blades! Now I know who makes them! Bill, their brass fishplates are the last item listed on: www.exactoscale.co.uk/7mmtrack.html David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poggy1165 Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 David, I love the Exactoscale fishplates and would recommend them to anyone, though the plastic versions are quite fragile and have to be applied with care. Now all I need in the PW department is a workable way of making inside keyed track for sidings! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted November 26, 2011 Author Share Posted November 26, 2011 I'm afraid I can't answer your question about 'rail joiners' Bill but I bet you there's someone who can. On the subject of rail profile, as I understand it anyway, 'bullhead' rail was the British standard until replacement by 'flat-bottomed' rail started on heavily trafficked lines in the 1950s. 'Bullhead' however lingered on (and may indeed still do) on lightly used branchlines, spurs and on sidings. As another newbie to the scale, were it not for the availability of prototypically accurate track featuring detail I can actually see and appreciate I'd have gone for Peco, and I did (briefly) consider the possible cost-saving option of buying second-hand Peco points and improving them cosmetically. However the prices I saw examples going for on a certain well-known auction site were not far off the cost of new and it proved difficult to tell whether I was looking at the old or new versions! Apart from time I can't see a significant difference between the cost of C&L components and ready-to-lay new Peco so I'm going with C&L for its prototypical fidelity. However I'd suggest you shouldn't be allow yourself to be over-influenced by my choice, more by what you want to achieve, your modelling priorities, how long you want it all to take ...and above all; how much enjoyment you'll get from your conclusion. I'll no doubt still be building track (and hopefully loving it though probably muttering and cursing) long after anyone starting at the same time with Peco is happily into the running phase and I'll certainly have to work harder to achieve Peco's practical operational efficiency and running qualities! There seem to be several of us all at a similar stage in our 'conversion' at the moment and for me it's been the help and advice from fellow RMWeb members which has been the greatest source of inspiration. Bon voyage... David David - Thanks for your reply - I have sorted out the joiner problem - but the link to C&L has opened a whole territory to explore and puts some real magic into the world of O gauge. It has given me a lot to ponder as well as what I am sure will 'turn out' to be a better direction to go in... The jump to O gauge for me is to get to a better fidelity and realism at a size I can more easliy work with and clearly living with OO/HO track for years has dulled my sensitivity in that area. I now see that a whole lot more becomes possible... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edcayton Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 So what is the general feeling about Peco 0 gauge track and points? I like the fact that bullhead is available because there was an awful lot of it about in the early sixties! Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Siddall Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 So what is the general feeling about Peco 0 gauge track and points? I like the fact that bullhead is available because there was an awful lot of it about in the early sixties! Ed Ed, I'd suggest that the photos of the Ramchester team's improved Peco points points are well worth a look - decisive evidence of just how good Peco can be made to look! My conclusion however was that whilst efficient, robust and ready-to-lay Peco's track wouldn't allow me to achieve the prototypical accuracy I'm changing up to 7mm scale to achieve. Neither would their stock point units allow me to create the flowing formations I want for my track plan. I've built points before (in both 'N' and 'OO') but I found it a real challenge to match the robustness and running qualities of Peco. I've also improved their OO points cosmetically but that took almost as long as building from scratch in the first place! In visual terms it's also been pointed out that Peco's two-part blades are actually prototypical - they're representative of 'heel switches' (I had to Google that one), but that's not the prototype I want to replicate. If we're talking plain track then Peco does exactly what it says on the tin - unfortunately, even though they offer both bullhead and flat-bottom options neither of them will produce track that's as attractive or accurate as C&L (...or for that matter Exactoscale, although I personally prefer the C&L approach) Bottom line (for me)... if I could afford to collect as many locos and items stock in 'O' as I could in 'N' or 'OO' then I'd have most likely have gone for Peco to get something to run everything on quickly. But initially I've decided to focus on the less costly aspect of 'O' gauge modelling, super-accurate track and its associated infrastructure, fully-operational signalling and lots of scenic detail. It's going to take a while to get to the point where the piggy bank will be able to withstand the sort of outlay required for a quality loco kit so, while the loco fund is building up, I can enjoyably get on with some serious modelling building all the other important stuff. Fortunately however there's Peco for anyone who's not quite as nuts as me :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Siddall Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 ...the link to C&L has opened a whole territory to explore and puts some real magic into the world of O gauge.... This is the sort of result which inspired me Bill: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/27458-peco-o-gauge-track-dimensions/page__view__findpost__p__284578 And this is well worth a look: http://www.newrailwaymodellers.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=17983&p=302703#p302704 (...just hope a link to another forum doesn't get me excommunicated ;-) David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matloughe Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 I considered building my own track work as well - I have recently started with the 'Senior Scale' and in the end I opted for Peco because it is my first try and I knew Peco would give me reliably running track out of the box - which was a necessity for my experimentation in a new gauge. However I would consider building my own once I have gained some more skills - I'd imagine it is most enjoyable seeing the track being used after knowing what you had to do to build it. On my boards (I dare not call it a layout yet...) I have opted for Peco Bullhead trackwork throughout and it looks really good to my eyes coming up from 4mm scale. The pointwork is nice & robust and my kitbuilt wagons seem to have no problem negotiating it - and I know for a fact the wheels on the wagons aren't entirely in line with each other... or square to the chassis but it runs nicely nevertheless. I have found my Lima Diesel shunter does tend to pitch & roll when running over the points - but this is to do with the wheel profile of the locomotive as its quite old - rather then indicative of an issue with the points. Hope that Helps, ~ Gary Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Mike Bellamy Posted November 27, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 27, 2011 And this is well worth a look: http://www.newrailwa...=302703#p302704 (...just hope a link to another forum doesn't get me excommunicated ;-) I certainly hope not - that's an excellent example of 'shows you how' and I have saved that for future reference - thanks for sharing that with us Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted November 27, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 27, 2011 You can build a pretty good layout using Peco track and points. Ken Payne used it on his well known layout. ( see if I can dig out a suitable picture). However others prefer to use C+L (my choice). It is really just a matter of choice. Personally I like to make turnouts to suit the location and achieve a natural flow. The choice between Bullhead and flat bottom is down to what you are modelling. If its steam I suggest bullhead. If BR Blue is flatbottm on the main lines and some bullhead in sidings. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Siddall Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Just out of curiosity I've re-drawn my trackplan using AnyRail and Peco's curved turnouts (thanks for the tip re. the software Gary, after singularly failing to master XTrackCad I really like it!). The issue from my point of view would be that at just over 20" long (with quoted radius of 122' and 68') Peco turnouts would appear to be better suited to a main-line formation rather than a compact branchline layout where speeds are low, loco wheelbases are shorter and plain track space is at a premium. If I used stock turnouts I think I'd also have to increase the board width to accommodate the sort of scenic development I have in mind. I hope (?) that by hand-building slighly shorter units with a minimum 6'radius on the diverging track (halfway between an A5 and a B6 is I think the correct way to describe them) I can get enough shunting room whilst remaining as true to prototype a my little layout plan will allow. David PS: http://85a.co.uk/for...1225&forum_id=6, a post on the Templot forum which I hope supports my references to A5 and B6 and things between? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted November 29, 2011 Author Share Posted November 29, 2011 You can build a pretty good layout using Peco track and points. Ken Payne used it on his well known layout. ( see if I can dig out a suitable picture). However others prefer to use C+L (my choice). It is really just a matter of choice. Personally I like to make turnouts to suit the location and achieve a natural flow. The choice between Bullhead and flat bottom is down to what you are modelling. If its steam I suggest bullhead. If BR Blue is flatbottm on the main lines and some bullhead in sidings. Don Thanks Don - you make it very clear. Is it possible to attach say - Bullhead points to flat head rail stock or vice versa in an effective manner? Thus to provide a mix of trackwork that functions well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted November 29, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 29, 2011 Thanks Don - you make it very clear. Is it possible to attach say - Bullhead points to flat head rail stock or vice versa in an effective manner? Thus to provide a mix of trackwork that functions well. Bill I am sure I remember seeing Flatbottom Trackwork which connected to Bullhead turnouts usually the sidings would be in Bullhead. I think it was easier to construct turnouts in bullhead and you could not always do a straight replacement with Flat Bottom. If the pointwork was to be replaced it was more common to relay and rationalise the whole layout. It would be good to see a layout featuring both. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted November 29, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 29, 2011 Just out of curiosity I've re-drawn my trackplan using AnyRail and Peco's curved turnouts (thanks for the tip re. the software Gary, after singularly failing to master XTrackCad I really like it!). The issue from my point of view would be that at just over 20" long (with quoted radius of 122' and 68') Peco turnouts would appear to be better suited to a main-line formation rather than a compact branchline layout where speeds are low, loco wheelbases are shorter and plain track space is at a premium. If I used stock turnouts I think I'd also have to increase the board width to accommodate the sort of scenic development I have in mind. I hope (?) that by hand-building slighly shorter units with a minimum 6'radius on the diverging track (halfway between an A5 and a B6 is I think the correct way to describe them) I can get enough shunting room whilst remaining as true to prototype a my little layout plan will allow. David PS: http://85a.co.uk/for...1225&forum_id=6, a post on the Templot forum which I hope supports my references to A5 and B6 and things between? David I built my layout using A5.5 points Using a lead of 49ft2in 346mm in 0. This has a turnout radius of 264ft a mere smidgen over 6ft. You would probably find a straight sprung 9ft switch might save a bit more space using the same crosssing. Full size the chairs are marked as 5.25-5.75 showing that the they can be used for crosssing angles around 5.5. You also show a number of curved points. Do you know how to calculate these? Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Siddall Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Full size the chairs are marked as 5.25-5.75 showing that the they can be used for crossing angles around 5.5. You also show a number of curved points. Do you know how to calculate these? Don Thanks Don, but I'd be a complete fraud if I answered anything other than 'um... not yet' ;-) Really keen to hand-build the turnouts for my first 'senior scale' project but a complete novice at this level of technical/prototype fidelity. Have built points from scratch before (using soldered construction in 'N') but from my own drawings to fit the location. They certainly looked better than what's available off the shelf and they worked, but in such a tiny scale there wasn't a lot of what you might call finesse or detail in the construction. I'm hoping the change to 'O' will give me the chance to produce something rather more sophisticated and recognisably based on prototype practice. Lot's of learning to do... David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted December 1, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 1, 2011 David the Gauge 0 guild manual has a very good section on track and turnouts. Otherwise if you know the radii you would like I can work out the nearest equivalent. The key to building any turnout is the Lead (distance from the points of the blade to the crossing nose) and the crossing angle. Additional details such as the specific switch etc help but for a model if the lead and the crossing angle match it will be ok. This photo from Wootton on the IOW shows a short bullhead turnout Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Siddall Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Cheers Don... getting to grips with Templot should, I think, be next on my 'to do' list as I don't stand a snowflake's chance of ever understanding all the complex maths and geometry (...I think that's what it is anyway?) contained in the Gauge O Guild's various pointwork downloads. Obviously I do need to figure out things like turnout radii, etc., but all that calculations stuff is way too technical for my mind which, whilst capable of functioning fine on a creative level just shuts down at the sight of mathematical symbols. If I can draw a viable track layout the software should tell me the key pieces of information I need to know and maybe that would be the appropriate point to ask your advice again. Thanks again... David PS: This might be a long road as I've just discovered that Templot appears to be under re-development and therefore temporarily unavailable for download. One of the man reasons for the jump to 7mm was to build my own track to a recognisably prototypical standard but at present I have to say that I'm really having to fight the temptation just roll over and play 'Peco' ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted December 5, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 5, 2011 <p>If you would prefer to buy some Peco and get a start with a view to making your own later on why not? However if you do want to have a go maths is not really necessary. For straight turnouts all you need is the lead, the crossing angle and the planning angle for the switches. You could manage quite well with A5.5 and B6 turnouts which come out at just over 6ft and 7ft respectively. You can align the closure rails by eye. For the curved turnouts a B8 in an 8ft curve will give a diverging radius of 5.1ft in a 7ft curve the diverging radius will be 4.6ft.. If you haven't got templot I could print off some templates or just draw you a diagram. For the crossings I made simple jigs.</p> <div></div> <div>Just panel pins in a scrap of wood</div> <div> </div> <div>My recommendations is to either by a Peco point and then build a loco or buy a loco and then build your own points. It helps to have a loco to test your tracks and to have tracks to test your loco. Testing both together can be tricky as you don't know which is wrong.</div> <div>Don</div> Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 If I can put in my 2p worth, flat bottom was used on heavily used track in the 50's and before that in some places, bullhead was used on secondary routes. In the 60's the bullhead was starting to be replaced on secondary systems with flat bottom when life expired. Flat bottom and bullhead don't mix in a running line situation, having said that I did see flat bottom and bullhead joined at York station in the 70's, the bullhead was on the platform road and the flat bottom was the running line into the station, they were welded together, this is the only time I ever saw that situation other than in goods yards where the flat bottom gave way to bullhead. Bob Essary did a very good article in Model Railways Journal 23 regarding handbuilt trackwork, although it was S7 the basic dimentions etc. are the same, if you can get hold of a copy it is well worth the read, loads of photo's and drawings. Webbo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Siddall Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 That's a nifty little Jig Don... thanks for the advice. I'm still a bit baffled by the terminology and technicalities but I'm getting there (slowly). Version 3 re-draw of my plan using AnyRail almost complete which I'll post on my thread this weekend if I get the chance, work however is particularly intrusive at the moment :-( David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.