Jump to content
 

Modifying Peco code 100 to produce a scissor crossing


Ian_H

Recommended Posts

First of all, if I'm in the wrong section then please accept my appologies and if the mods want to move this topic I have no problem with that.

 

I’ve been considering having ago at building my own turnouts in 00 or HO (sorry Matin couldn’t resist) H0 code 100 but before doing that and to help build a little bit of courage I thought I would have a go at modifying some Peco track to form a scissor crossing from 4 medium turnouts and a short crossing. Of course you could just plug these into each other and hey presto a scissor crossing but that wouldn’t fit my requirement. I think Peco streamline has a parallel lines running at 50mm centres whereas 44mm would be more prototypical, so alas, to fit with the existing track work 50mm it will be!

 

Over the last couple of evenings I’ve been messing about with the peco templates and the image below is what I have produced.

 

post-15511-0-36892600-1396702298_thumb.jpg

 

Hopefully you will see that my intention is to remove the stock and vee rails from the crossover and for the curved stock rail of the turnout to become the vee rail of the crossover and for the vee rail of the turnout to become the stock rail of the crossover. Now I don’t see a problem in the technical aspects of this procedure but I’m new to this so perhaps there are problems that I haven’t seen yet. However, I am having some difficulties in removing the stock rail from the crossover. I managed to remove the vee rail, it has a rebate cut into the bottom (foot/sole) of the rail on both side and is held in place by the plastic moulding of the sleeper base, once removed it slides out.

 

Your thoughts on the above would be most welcomed (ie will it work? :no: ) together with any advice on removing the stock rails.

 

Ian

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian

 

I have no experience with modifying Peco code 100 track, or any other RTR track work, but there is a thread where someone has replaced plastic sleepers with copperclad ones. This was to improve the appearance of the track rather than modifying it.

 

As for the crossing, providing you keep the angles square to each other I guess it should work. I can see some potential problems, firstly the 2 new common crossings (Vees) you will have to make and secondly knitting all together.

 

Replacing some timbers with copperclad ones, firstly 2 across the middle diamond. This will hold all 5 units together, perhaps the 4th sleeper from both left and right of the diamond. With the 2 new common crossings you will need to make isolation cuts to isolate them electrically, I would use a full length copperclad sleeper either side of the cut. These will hold the rails in line and tie in both turnouts

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian

 

I have no experience with modifying Peco code 100 track, or any other RTR track work, but there is a thread where someone has replaced plastic sleepers with copperclad ones. This was to improve the appearance of the track rather than modifying it.

 

As for the crossing, providing you keep the angles square to each other I guess it should work. I can see some potential problems, firstly the 2 new common crossings (Vees) you will have to make and secondly knitting all together.

 

Replacing some timbers with copperclad ones, firstly 2 across the middle diamond. This will hold all 5 units together, perhaps the 4th sleeper from both left and right of the diamond. With the 2 new common crossings you will need to make isolation cuts to isolate them electrically, I would use a full length copperclad sleeper either side of the cut. These will hold the rails in line and tie in both turnouts

 

Thanks John

 

I'll have a look at replacing the timbers. Certainly, copper strip would add strength to the whole structure. Presently still struggling with removing the stock rails on the crossover.

 

Why not save yerself the hassle, and buy a Shinohara example instead ??

 

Hi Paul,

 

Did you use the Shinohara one on your "Cannons Lane"? If so then it doesn't look so bad but I am more interested in getting  a feel for modifying the track and hopefully moving on to building my own S & C. I think the hassle is part of what I want, I know it will slow the whole project down but hopefully it will allow me to learn

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I have an American piece that is much like what you did with the crossing, except that the middle is solid plastic.  It's so old that the rail is brass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,

 

Did you use the Shinohara one on your "Cannons Lane"? If so then it doesn't look so bad but I am more interested in getting  a feel for modifying the track and hopefully moving on to building my own S & C. I think the hassle is part of what I want, I know it will slow the whole project down but hopefully it will allow me to learn

 I certainly did, but I used the code 83 example ( to go with Peco code 75 track) which meant resetting a lot of Hornby loco driving wheel back to backs to the correct distance, with the code 100 that wouldn't  be necessary.  Although I must admit, I had to extend the angled ends of the wing-rails by about 5mm - a simple 10 minute job, as supplied they're a little short, but again not necessary in code 100. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for the crossing, providing you keep the angles square to each other I guess it should work. I can see some potential problems, firstly the 2 new common crossings (Vees) you will have to make and secondly knitting all together.

 

 

 

Ian

 

I have a feeling it may be a lot easier making it from scratch, but with a little care you should be OK

Hi John,

 

I have been a little preoccupied over the last days but have comeback to the creation of the scissor crossing and the difficulties that I was experiencing in removing the stock rails from the crossover. The stock rails have now been removed and the crossover has been suitable butchered but before butchering the Peco points (okay turnouts) I decided to blow-up/enlarge the pdf images of the turnouts and crossings.

 

It has now become clear that as I shorten the curved stock rail of the turnout then the angle of approach to the Vee of the crossover changes (common sense really ... should’ve paid more attention in geometry class)  and isn’t as smooth flowing as I expected. This causes a dilemma, do I put up with a dogs leg in the scissor crossing (I wanted it to be smooth flowing) or do I build my own crossover to suit the Peco points and since the object of the exercise was to eventually move to building my own S & C ... guess I should really just cut to the chase.

 

Thanks

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian

 

I would firstly obtain Templot, that is if you have not got it already.

 

Next I thing there is a template (plan) of a Peco turnout, then make a crossover. A trailing crossover with a facing crossover gives you the start of a scissors crossover. There is now a bit of work to turn it into a detailed plan of a scissors crossing but can be done. If you are building in Code 100 then perhaps you could reuse some parts

 

Good luck

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...