Is Hornby Track really that good?

[JackBlack]

Hi Everyone,

 

I'm stuck at a halt on my layout. I have Peco Streamline flex-track and Hornby Sectional Track (and one Peco point) for my track, but I'm unsure if I should use it. I've heard some bad

comments about the small Radius Points and set track and am sort of considering using Code 75 small radius points instead. My first sort-of plan was to use the Streamline flex-track and

get the Code 75 points to then chuck the set track out. What do you guys think? Here is my plan if it helps.

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

You will obtain better running and appearance from the slightly easier radius and live crossing of the streamline small radius point. Best to make the call before construction, either using set track throughout or not. Set track works to a fixed geometry, but provides the advantage that loose laid track may be experimented with, and rearranged as frequently as required. The flexible track system demands that some sort of track base be provided, in order to secure the track in the desired layout. Although both systems can be combined, you have to live with the downsides of each, while also limiting the potential advantages of each system.

[edcayton]

You could just lay the setrack you've got on a flat surface without fixing it down, and just try it. If it works OK withe your stock then there's no reason you can't build the layout with it.

This is obviously the cheaper option, but as others have said flexi and larger radius points will look better, and live frogs should give better running if you can get your head around the wiring.

Personally, if I was building a small layout and needed sharp curves I'd go for setrack.

 

Ed

[HLT 0109]

Hi Everyone,

 

I've heard some bad comments about the small Radius Points and set track and am sort of considering using Code 75 small radius points instead.

 

I have used about 60 Hornby set track points for the whole of my layout. If I were to start again, I think I would use something else (possibly PECO) - mainly because the gentler curves look so much better. But they do take up more room which is considerable where there is a complicated arrangement. I have had running difficulties, particularly when shunting Bachmann Mk1 coaches and the longer wheelbase wagons around "S" bends. My Bachmann 9F struggles a little when wiggling slowly through my shed area as it tends to bind on the sharp radii. The insulfrog is not a significant problem but I do have to keep an eye on the point clips necessary for DCC opration - from time to time they cease to make adequate electrical contact.

[JackBlack]

Thanks guys. In my opinion I'm going to go with Code 75 turnouts and Streamline flex-track as it will be better for myself. Is the wiring hard with Code 75 track?

 

Anyway, here is a plan of the revised one in my previous post:

 

[RW James]

Jack - obviously the larger your radius the better - but sometimes we have limitations that don't allow this. I have heard a lot of bad comments about Hornby points. But I have to tell you that I am using Hornby small radius points (with an assortment of flex track manufacturers - all code 100) and I have only had problems when the track leading into the point was laid badly. There may be brands that aren't as fussy - but if you are willing to make the effort you can make them work.

[Guest dilbert]

Re. the OP, I think that the original question was answered - I must admit I wouldn't be to keen on mixing code 100 or 75 on a layout (unless the code 100 stuff is relegated to fiddle yards) and ripping up track on a progressive basis - for myself, it would be a question of one or the other ...

 

You could gain some space by replacing the two facing points with a double slip (a single slip would work as well in this instance)... dilbert

[HLT 0109]

and I have only had problems when the track leading into the point was laid badly. There may be brands that aren't as fussy - but if you are willing to make the effort you can make them work.

I agree that, if care is taken in laying the track on the approach to Hornby points it may overcome a derailing problem - particularly with curved points (although these do not feature in OP's diagram) but, as has been stated elsewhere on this forum, the curved points in particular do seem to suffer from too great a gap between the running rail and the check rail. The rest of my track is Hornby and Bachmann set-track and semi-flexible and this has not given any trouble - except that some of the semi-flexible seems to be very fragile.

[corax67]

Hi Jack - I have built quite a few layouts over the years for home, club and exhibition and in the early days used both Hornby and Peco but these days I only use Peco Code 100 setrack.

 

I find it easy to use and reliable and you can run pretty much any age of stock on it without too much worrying over wheel profiles (older stock can be a bit derail happy on code 75)

 

Don't mix code 75 & 100 as it will cause a heap of running issues but wiring code 75 is no more difficult than wiring code 100.

 

I like the track plan by the way.

[JackBlack]

Thankyou everyone for their help and comments.

 

I've re-arranged the plan with 2 versions:

 

One is with a double slip:

 

 

One with Code 100 track instead of Code 75:

 

 

I've done this on what I feel is appropiate from what you guys have said.

 

Thanks

 

 

[edcayton]

Good morning Jack. I thought that the plan geometry of Peco code 75 and 100 were the same. Do you have the Peco templates or are you relying on the program?

 

Ed

[JackBlack]

I'm relying on the program. why'd you ask?