Half Slips and Double Slips

I've got half-a-dozen Peco code 100 double slips on my layout, and run European HO through them without derailments. Also, I've several brass locos with fine scale wheels and these give no trouble at sensible speeds. Even a friend's South African 4-8-2+2-8-4 Garratt goes through o.k. Problems sometimes occur with losing power to a loco, due largely to not enough wheels picking up power. The only other problem with one set was that one of the over-centering springs failed, and the point is in an awkward loctation to replace. The point still works, but one has in mind that it might split under a train sometime. Regards, Bill.

"Chris Wilson" wrote in message news:Xns96EBCABE3E999ulmbritwarcouk@130.133.1.4...

There appears to be a very mixed opinion at the moment so I am swaying between using them and not using them. I suppose I could install one set and see how they get on and remove them if they are too much trouble before I ballast.

Kevin

wrote

If it's any help to you, in over 18 years of trading I've no recollection of ever having a Peco single or double slip returned as faulty.

John.

The curve radius of the code 75 slips is somewhere between the two radii of the two lines of a large radius code 75 turnout. It is not as bad as the sharper radius on the curved turnout. I'll get my old BR drawing office curves out and measure the radius. I use a double slip and a single slip on my layout (3 year old picture:

current pictures in next release of Model Railways Online Magazine: and don't have any running problems with them. The mainline curves nearest the camera are 5 foot radius and those near the platforms are about 150 inch radius IIRC.

The only thing I would say about these is watch the tie-bar spring. These turnouts have an absolutely stupid design whereby the springs have to be replaced from the _undersides_ of the units. An absolute disaster once they are fixed down and ballasted. In my case, I was able to get access from underneath because I had fitted Peco point motors. These have now been replaced with Seep self-latching motors so the slip doesn't need a spring any more (which was near enough bu**er impossible to fit because the stupid retainer plate won't refit once it is removed!).

How long have Peco been making turnouts ?? Not only do the code 75 slips require underside spring fitting, but so does their entire range of brand new US code 83 turnouts! We seem to be going backwards!!! Isn't it about time companies got this sort of fundamental design flaw sorted out ???

Graham Plowman

Jane Sullivan wrote:

Would removing the tie bar springs from the DSP before laying and fitting the Peco baseplate to the Peco pointmotor under the DSP solve the problem? (The plate intended for mounting Peco motors on top of the baseboard)

Regards, Greg.P.

I remove the tie bar springs and use Tortoise motors on all my points.

In message , snipped-for-privacy@gppsoftware.com writes

I'd be interested to see how you worked that out. From what I can see the geometry of the code 75 slips is the same as that of the code 100 slips. That means the average curve radius is 502mm. The radii of the large radius curved points are 1524mm. and 762mm. (so says their catalogue). If you compare a slip with their small radius point, you'll see that for the same 12 degree angle of turn, the curve is much shorter, implying that it must be sharper than the radius of the small radius point, which is 610mm.

Incidentally the Peco 12 degree frog angle works out at 1 in 4.7 for those that are interested in such things. Now I know why I have been getting more and more dissatisfied with Peco points. It will certainly be interesting to see the Code 83 No.8 point when it comes out. The frog angle of that should be 7 degrees 7.5 minutes.

Those are a bit exotic, expensive and hard to come by in NZ - I'd finally decided to quit all my H&Ms and go with Peco motors. :-)

Greg.P.

Greg,

I get all mine (Tortoises) from the US of A.

Sensible, especially with the US dollar continually sliding!

Regards, Greg.P.

The length of curve is only 12 degrees and shorter than (almost) any 3 axle or greater locomotive, so unless you include the DSP in a continuous curve the actual radius should be of little moment.

So long as I remain ignorant of the prototype angle and so long as my layout ambitions excede the space I have available, I can remain satisfied with Peco's offerings. Generally prototype railway track formations are seen from near (1,75m) ground level and are therefore greatly foreshortened in appearance so, so long as the relationship of train to track formation doesn't get too far out of proportion, I can live with it. Remember, (my) model trains are shorter than their prototype by nearly 50% and my m/l station is about 20% scale of it's prototype.

The track layout of the station is basically 5 parallel tracks with a ladder at each end. (plus loco depot, head shunts etc etc) T1 passenger. T2 passenger. T3 through/multipurpose. T4 goods makeup. T5 goods unloading. Using large Peco turnouts, the 5th track would be little more than the return curves of the turnouts coming together and no wagon capacity. Using medium Peco turnouts, that 5th track gains a few usable wagon lengths, but not sufficient to emulate the prototype usage. Using 2 foot radius turnouts track 5 becomes long enough to be operated as the prototype was.

Without adding on to the house the total layout length will remain restricted. Obviously I have to make compromises somewhere (well, everywhere really) but in my case I'd rather compromise turnout length to operation or prototype. On my prototype, the turnout geometry was that of a continuous curve from point through the frog so US style turnouts are quite wrong anyway.

Regards, Greg.P.

"Greg Procter" wrote

Its slide against the GB pound has reversed in recent months.

John.

Against the NZ $ it has bounced a little but the overall movement is still down. Perhaps it's time I stocked up on Peco motors(?)

Regards, Greg.P.

You mean 'tried to avoid' I think. They had them at Inverness.

Ken.

There is nothing on a slip which is more critical than the common crossing on a turnout; just four of them, as opposed to two on a pair of turnouts back to back.

Ken.

Er - there's only two "common crossings" on a slip. The other two crossings ("elbows" to the GWR) are "K crossings" or "obtuse crossings" but are not "common crossings".

I was pointing to four critical locations, not four common crossings. Didn't know the GWR called them elbows. And if we're being pedantic it's "Er - there are...", not "Er - there's..." Love all :))

Ken.

Read what you wrote above. What does the "them" in "just four of them" refer back to? I took it to refer back to "common crossing[s]", given the context of the following clause. Therefore, in my opinion, you were pointing to four common crossings.

You speak your dialect and I'll speak mine.

Ken

I still does not change the fact it is harder to get at the critical locations the correct dimension in a slip. This is because the check rail on a K crossing is the wing rail on the other K crossing. The result is track gauge and K crossing flange ways need to be dimensioned more accurately compared to the V crossing. For the V crossing the track gauge can vary considerably, as can the flangeway dimensions. If you want to get your K crossing dimensions correct see my web page and down load the spread sheet which does the sums.